Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression Of Change Research Articles

Evaluation of what matters most in existing clinical outcomes assessments in Alzheimer's disease

AbstractBackgroundThe Alzheimer's Disease Patient and Caregiver Engagement (AD PACE) Initiative works to identify and measure treatment‐related needs, preferences, and priorities of individuals with or at risk for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and care partners across the continuum of AD. First, the What Matters Most (WMM) study assessed needs, preferences and priorities of individuals in these populations. The next work will compare the WMM results to concepts in existing clinical outcome assessments (COAs) used in AD trials. This study identifies the most commonly used measures in AD research throughout the disease continuum.MethodTargeted literature and ClinicalTrials.gov searches identified COAs used in AD populations. Studies included pharmacological intervention or registry studies with individuals with preclinical or prodromal AD, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), mild, moderate, or severe AD, or caregivers of these individuals, and at least one type of COA.ResultsOver 900 records were retrieved. Records from the literature and Clinicaltrials.gov searches were combined and coded, yielding a total of 109 records for final review. Performance measures were the most common type of COA identified. COAs were most frequently used in MCI, and mild and moderate AD populations; COAs were used less often among prodromal/preclinical and severe AD populations. The six most frequently reported COAs identified were ADAS‐Cog, Mini‐Mental State Examination (MMSE), Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI), Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study ‐ Activities of Daily living Inventory (ADCS‐ADL), Clinical Dementia Rating Scale (CDR), and Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study ‐ Clinical Global Impression of Change (ADCS‐CGIC).ConclusionPerformance measures (e.g., MMSE & CDR) were the most common type of COA identified, followed by clinician‐reported and observational measures. Only three COAs were used in all 5 AD populations: MMSE, ADCS‐ADL, NPI. Very few patient‐reported measures were identified; the most frequently being the EQ5D ( used in 4/5 AD populations). The most commonly used clinician‐reported measures included the NPI, ADCS‐CGIC, and Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C‐SSRS). The next phase of this work will assess the extent to which these existing measures capture the concepts that are most important to individuals with or at risk for AD and their care partners as identified in the WMM study.

Rivastigmine for mild cognitive impairment in Parkinson disease: a placebo-controlled study.

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in Parkinson's disease (PD) may be associated with subtle functional impairment and worse quality of life. The objective of this study was to determine the efficacy and tolerability of rivastigmine for PD-MCI. Patients with PD-MCI (n = 28) were enrolled in a 24-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover, single-site study of the rivastigmine transdermal patch. The primary outcome measure was the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change (ADCS-CGIC). Secondary outcomes included the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Dementia Rating Scale-2 (DRS-2), Neurotrax computerized cognitive battery, the Everyday Cognition Battery (ECB), and the Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-8). Twenty-six participants (92.9%) completed both study phase assessments, and 23 (82.1%) completed both phases on study medication. The CGIC response rate demonstrated a trend effect in favor of rivastigmine (regression coefficient for interaction term in linear mixed-effects model = 0.44, F[df] = 3.01 [1, 24], P = 0.096). For secondary outcomes, a significant rivastigmine effect on the ECB (regression coefficient = -2.41, F[df] = 5.81 [1, 22.05], P = 0.03) was seen, but no treatment effect was found on any cognitive measures. Trend effects also occurred in favor of rivastigmine on the PDQ-8 (regression coefficient = 4.55, F[df] = 3.93 [1, 14. 79], P = 0.09) and the State Anxiety Inventory (regression coefficient = -1.24, F[df] = 3.17 [1, 33], P = 0.08). Rivastigmine in PD-MCI showed a trend effect for improvements on a global rating of cognition, disease-related health status, and anxiety severity, and significant improvement on a performance-based measure of cognitive abilities. © 2015 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

Evaluating Response to High-Dose 13.3mg/24h Rivastigmine Patch in Patients with Severe Alzheimer's Disease.

To identify factors predicting improvement/stabilization on the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change (ADCS-CGIC) and investigate whether early treatment responses can predict long-term outcomes, during a trial of 13.3mg/24h versus 4.6mg/24h rivastigmine patch in patients with severe Alzheimer's disease (AD). Logistic regression was used to relate Week 24 ADCS-CGIC score to potential baseline predictors. Additional analyses based on receiver-operating characteristic curves were performed using Week 8/16 ADCS-CGIC scores to predict response (13.3mg/24h patch) at Week 24. ADCS-CGIC score of (1) 1-3="improvement," (2) 1-4="improvement or no change". "Treatment" (13.3mg/24h patch) and increased age were significant predictors of "improvement" (P=0.01 and P=0.003, respectively), and "treatment" (P=0.001), increased age (P=0.002), and prior AD treatment (P=0.03) for "improvement or no change". At Week 8 and 16, ADCS-CGIC scores of 4 and 5 were optimal thresholds in predicting "improvement," and "improvement or no change," respectively, at Week 24. A significant therapeutic effect of high-dose rivastigmine patch on ADCS-CGIC response was observed. The 13.3mg/24h patch was identified as a predictor of "improvement" or "improvement or no change". Patients with minimal worsening/improvement/no change after treatment initiation may be more likely to respond following long-term therapy.

Safety and Efficacy of Methylphenidate for Apathy in Alzheimer’s Disease

In a recent crossover trial, methylphenidate treatment decreased apathy in Alzheimer's disease. We further assessed this finding in the Apathy in Dementia Methylphenidate Trial (ADMET). Six-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter trial enrolling Alzheimer's disease participants (NINCDS-ADRDA criteria) with apathy assigned to methylphenidate 20 mg daily or placebo, conducted from June 2010 to December 2011. Primary outcomes were change in Apathy Evaluation Scale (AES) score and modified Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change (ADCS-CGI-C). Secondary outcomes included change in Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) apathy score, Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score, and safety. 60 participants were randomly assigned (29 methylphenidate, 31 placebo). At baseline, mean (SD) age = 76 (8) years, MMSE score = 20 (5), AES score = 51 (12), NPI total score = 16 (8), and 62% of the participants (n = 37) were female. After 6 weeks' treatment, mean (SD) change in AES score was -1.9 (1.5) for methylphenidate and 0.6 (1.4) for placebo (P = .23). Odds ratio for improvement in ADCS-CGI-C was 3.7 (95% CI, 1.3 to 10.8) (P = .02), with 21% of methylphenidate versus 3% of placebo rated as moderately or markedly improved. NPI apathy score improvement was 1.8 points (95% CI, 0.3 to 3.4) greater on methylphenidate than on placebo (P = .02). MMSE trended toward improvement on methylphenidate (P = .06). There were trends toward greater anxiety and weight loss > 2% in the methylphenidate-treated group. Methylphenidate treatment of apathy in Alzheimer's disease was associated with significant improvement in 2 of 3 efficacy outcomes and a trend toward improved global cognition with minimal adverse events, supporting the safety and efficacy of methylphenidate treatment for apathy in Alzheimer's disease. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01117181.

Cholinesterase inhibitors for dementia with Lewy bodies, Parkinson's disease dementia and cognitive impairment in Parkinson's disease

Previous Cochrane reviews have considered the use of cholinesterase inhibitors in both Parkinson's disease with dementia (PDD) and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB). The clinical features of DLB and PDD have much in common and are distinguished primarily on the basis of whether or not parkinsonism precedes dementia by more than a year. Patients with both conditions have particularly severe deficits in cortical levels of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine. Therefore, blocking its breakdown using cholinesterase inhibitors may lead to clinical improvement. To assess the efficacy, safety and tolerability of cholinesterase inhibitors in dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), Parkinson's disease with dementia (PDD), and cognitive impairment in Parkinson's disease falling short of dementia (CIND-PD) (considered as separate phenomena and also grouped together as Lewy body disease). The trials were identified from a search of ALOIS, the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group (on 30 August 2011) using the search terms Lewy, Parkinson, PDD, DLB, LBD. This register consists of records from major healthcare databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL) and many ongoing trial databases and is updated regularly.Reference lists of relevant studies were searched for additional trials. Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials assessing the efficacy of treatment with cholinesterase inhibitors in DLB, PDD and cognitive impairment in Parkinson's disease (CIND-PD). Data were extracted from published reports by one review author (MR). The data for each 'condition' (that is DLB, PDD or CIND-PD) were considered separately and, where possible, also pooled together. Statistical analysis was conducted using Review Manager version 5.0. Six trials met the inclusion criteria for this review, in which a total of 1236 participants were randomised. Four of the trials were of a parallel group design and two cross-over trials were included. Four of the trials included participants with a diagnosis of Parkinson's disease with dementia (Aarsland 2002a; Dubois 2007; Emre 2004; Ravina 2005), of which Dubois 2007 remains unpublished. Leroi 2004 included patients with cognitive impairment and Parkinson's disease (both with and without dementia). Patients with dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) were included in only one of the trials (McKeith 2000).For global assessment, three trials comparing cholinesterase inhibitor treatment to placebo in PDD (Aarsland 2002a; Emre 2004; Ravina 2005) reported a difference in the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change (ADCS-CGIC) score of -0.38, favouring the cholinesterase inhibitors (95% CI -0.56 to -0.24, P < 0.0001).For cognitive function, a pooled estimate of the effect of cholinesterase inhibitors on cognitive function measures was consistent with the presence of a therapeutic benefit (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.34, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.23, P < 0.00001). There was evidence of a positive effect of cholinesterase inhibitors on the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) in patients with PDD (WMD 1.09, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.73, P = 0.0008) and in the single PDD and CIND-PD trial (WMD 1.05, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.68, P = 0.01) but not in the single DLB trial.For behavioural disturbance, analysis of the pooled continuous data relating to behavioural disturbance rating scales favoured treatment with cholinesterase inhibitors (SMD -0.20, 95% CI -0.36 to -0.04, P = 0.01).For activities of daily living, combined data for the ADCS and the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) activities of daily living rating scales favoured treatment with cholinesterase inhibitors (SMD -0.20, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.02, P = 0.03).For safety and tolerability, those taking a cholinesterase inhibitor were more likely to experience an adverse event (318/452 versus 668/842; odds ratio (OR) 1.64, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.15, P = 0.0003) and to drop out (128/465 versus 45/279; OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.33 to 2.84, P = 0.0006). Adverse events were more common amongst those taking rivastigmine (357/421 versus 173/240; OR 2.28, 95% CI 1.53 to 3.38, P < 0.0001) but not those taking donepezil (311/421 versus 145/212; OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.80, P = 0.25). Parkinsonian symptoms in particular tremor (64/739 versus 12/352; OR 2.71, 95% CI 1.44 to 5.09, P = 0.002), but not falls (P = 0.39), were reported more commonly in the treatment group but this did not have a significant impact on the UPDRS (total and motor) scores (P = 0.71). Fewer deaths occurred in the treatment group than in the placebo group (4/465 versus 9/279; OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.84, P = 0.03). The currently available evidence supports the use of cholinesterase inhibitors in patients with PDD, with a positive impact on global assessment, cognitive function, behavioural disturbance and activities of daily living rating scales. The effect in DLB remains unclear. There is no current disaggregated evidence to support their use in CIND-PD.

A 24-week, multicentre, open evaluation of the clinical effectiveness of the rivastigmine patch in patients with probable Alzheimer’s disease

Cholinesterase inhibitors form the mainstay of treatment for persons with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD). The rivastigmine patch may increase compliance and the proportion of patients maintaining an efficacious dose compared with oral cholinesterase inhibitors. To investigate the proportion of patients who reached and maintained the target rivastigmine patch dose compared with the target rivastigmine capsule dose reported in clinical trials. This was a multicentre, 24-week, open-label study in persons with probable AD and a Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score of ≥ 10 and ≤ 26. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients (ITT population) treated with 9.5 mg/24 h rivastigmine patch for at least 8 weeks at week 24. Secondary outcomes included week 24 MMSE, Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change (ADCS-CGIC), Trail Making Test Part A (TMT-A) and Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living (ADCS-ADL) scores. Overall, 208 participants received treatment and 155 (74.5%) completed the study. Within the ITT population, 147/182 patients (80.8%; 95% CI 75.0-86.5%) were treated for at least 8 weeks with the 9.5 mg/24 h rivastigmine patch; 135/182 patients (74.2%; 95% CI 67.8-80.5%) were treated for at least 8 weeks and completed the study. The most common adverse events were nausea (10.1% of patients), erythema (8.7%), pruritus (8.2%) and vomiting (7.2%). At week 24, patients treated with the rivastigmine patch showed improvements on MMSE, ADCS-ADL, ADCS-CGIC and TMT-A scores. Caregivers reported acceptance, preference and satisfaction with the patch. Transdermal delivery may allow more patients to reach and maintain therapeutic doses of rivastigmine compared with oral rivastigmine.

Effects of AZD3480 on Cognition in Patients with Mild-to-Moderate Alzheimer's Disease: A Phase IIb Dose-Finding Study

AZD3480 is a selective agonist of the central α4β2 and α2β2 neuronal nicotinic cholinergic receptors (NNRs). Its effects on cognition were investigated in 567 patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD) (Mini Mental State Examination [MMSE] 12-26). Mean baseline MMSE was 21 (SD ± 3.7), with 61% of patients having mild disease (MMSE 21-26). Mean age was 74 (range 58-85) years. Patients were randomized to one of 5 treatment groups: AZD3480 5 mg, 20 mg or 35/100 mg, donepezil 10 mg (active comparator) or placebo, and treated once daily for 12 weeks. The primary outcome measure was change from baseline at Week 12 on the AD Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog). Neither AZD3480 nor donepezil showed a statistically significant improvement versus placebo on ADAS-Cog. Improvements in a number of secondary outcome measures (MMSE, AD Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change (ADCS-CGIC) and Disability Assessment for Dementia [DAD]) were observed for AZD3480 and for donepezil. A post-hoc analysis on ADAS-Cog, excluding patients with very mild AD (MMSE 25-26) indicated improvement versus placebo for AZD3480 20 mg (-1.4, 95% CI: -3.0; 0.2) and donepezil (-1.0, 95% CI: -2.3; 0.3). AZD3480 was well tolerated. The study did not meet proof of concept criteria: since neither AZD3480 nor donepezil were statistically significantly superior to placebo on ADAS-Cog and was considered to be inconclusive. Further studies are required to determine the therapeutic potential of stimulating α4β2 receptors with NNRs in AD patients.

Dose effects associated with rivastigmine transdermal patch in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer’s disease

The cholinesterase inhibitor rivastigmine is available in both oral and transdermal forms. The efficacy of oral rivastigmine appears to be dose-dependent. The current analysis investigates the effect of dose on the efficacy of the rivastigmine transdermal patch. This was a retrospective analysis of a large, international, 24-week, randomised, placebo- and active-controlled trial (IDEAL, CENA713D2320) of rivastigmine in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD). Patients received the 9.5 mg/24 h rivastigmine patch, the 17.4 mg/24 h rivastigmine patch, 12 mg/day rivastigmine capsules or placebo. Changes from baseline at week 24 on the AD Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog), AD Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change (ADCS-CGIC) and the AD Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living (ADCS-ADL) scale were calculated based on the patient's mode and last prescribed patch dose. The analysis included the 4.6 mg/24 h and 13.3 mg/24 h patch doses, for which efficacy data have not previously been reported. Significant differences (p<0.05 vs. placebo) were seen on the ADAS-cog and ADCS-ADL for all mode rivastigmine patch doses (except 4.6 mg/24 h) and all last prescribed rivastigmine patch doses (except 4.6 mg/24 h and 13.3 mg/24 h). Patients with a last prescribed/mode patch dose of 9.5 mg/24 h and 13.3 mg/24 h showed significant improvements (p<0.05 vs. placebo) on the ADCS-CGIC. Rivastigmine patch doses higher than 9.5 mg/24 h may offer additional benefits. The 13.3 mg/24 h patch is worthy of further investigation.

Rivastigmine transdermal patch and capsule in Alzheimer's disease: influence of disease stage on response to therapy

The cholinesterase inhibitor rivastigmine is approved for the symptomatic treatment of mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD). This exploratory, hypothesis-forming analysis assessed response to rivastigmine according to severity of dementia at baseline. This was a retrospective analysis of a large randomized, placebo-controlled trial (ENA713D2320). AD patients treated with 9.5 mg/24 h rivastigmine patch, 17.4 mg/24 h rivastigmine patch, rivastigmine capsule (12 mg/day), or placebo were stratified according to baseline Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores: ≥7 to ≤12 (severe disease), ≥13 to ≤15 (moderately severe), ≥16 to ≤18 (moderate), or ≥19 to ≤25 (mild to moderate). Changes from baseline at Week 24 on Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog), Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change (ADCS-CGIC), and Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living (ADCS-ADL) were assessed. Based on baseline MMSE scores, 141, 228, 333, and 348 patients had severe, moderately severe, moderate, and mild to moderate dementia. Worsening of ADAS-cog, ADCS-CGIC, and ADCS-ADL scores in patients receiving placebo were greater in patients with more severe dementia. Significant improvements versus placebo were seen with rivastigmine patch and/or capsule on ADAS-cog, ADCS-CGIC, and ADCS-ADL scores in patients with severe, moderately severe, and moderate AD (all p < 0.05). However, no significant improvements were seen in rivastigmine-treated patients with mild to moderate AD. Rivastigmine benefits AD patients across dementia stages. Similar to previous cholinesterase inhibitor studies, greatest treatment effects with rivastigmine patch and capsule were seen in patients with more advanced dementia, most likely driven by greater placebo decline in this population.

Efficacy and safety of a once‐daily formulation of Ginkgo biloba extract EGb 761 in dementia with neuropsychiatric features: a randomized controlled trial

To test the efficacy and safety of a once-daily formulation of EGb 761 in the treatment of patients with dementia with neuropsychiatric features. Multi-centre trial of 410 outpatients with mild to moderate dementia (Alzheimer's disease, vascular dementia or mixed form) scoring between 9 and 23 on the SKT cognitive test battery, at least five on the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) and three or higher in at least one item of the NPI. Patients were randomly allocated to double-blind treatment with 240 mg of EGb 761 or placebo once daily for 24 weeks. Primary outcomes were the changes from baseline in the SKT total score and the NPI total score. The Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study Clinical Global Impression of Change (ADCS-CGIC), Activities of Daily Living International Scale (ADL-IS), NPI distress score, DEMQOL-Proxy quality-of-life scale and Verbal Fluency Test were secondary outcomes. At endpoint, patients treated with EGb 761 (n = 202) improved by -1.4 (95% confidence interval -1.8; -1.0) points on the SKT and by -3.2 (-4.0; -2.3) on the NPI total score, whereas those receiving placebo (n = 202) deteriorated by +0.3 (-0.1; 0.7) on the SKT and did not change on the NPI total score (-0.9; 0.9). Both drug-placebo comparisons were significant at p < 0.001. EGb 761 was significantly superior to placebo with respect to all secondary outcome measures. Adverse event rates were similar for both treatment groups. EGb 761, 240 mg once-daily, was found significantly superior to placebo in the treatment of patients with dementia with neuropsychiatric symptoms.

Characteristics and Performance of a Modified Version of the ADCS-CGIC CIBIC+ for Mild Cognitive Impairment Clinical Trials

The Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change (ADCS-CGIC) was modified for use in mild cognitive impairment (MCI) trials and tested in the ADCS MCI randomized clinical trial of donepezil, vitamin E, and placebo. We assessed feasibility for its use by determining whether or not: (1) it distinguished a medication effect at 6 months and 12 months, (2) baseline demographic or clinical characteristics predicted change, (3) there was an association between MCI-CGIC and change in other clinical measures in order to evaluate external or concurrent validity. We used a generalized estimating equations approach for ordinal outcome data to test the effects of treatment, baseline characteristics, and change in clinical measures on the MCI-CGIC over 12 months, and ordinal logistic regression to assess the association between MCI-CGIC and change in clinical measures at 6 months and 12 months. On the MCI-CGIC overall, 12.9% and 10.6% were rated as having improved, and 31.6% and 39.8% as having worsened over 6 months and 12 months, respectively. The MCI-CGIC did not distinguish the donepezil or vitamin E groups from placebo at 6 and 12 months treatment. Variables at screening or baseline that were associated with worse CGIC scores over 6 and 12 months included white race, greater years of education, worse depression, dementia severity rating, cognitive, and daily activities scores, and lower memory domain scores on a neuropsychological battery. Rate of worsening on the MCI-CGIC over 12 months was associated with change on the Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive and on executive function. Worsening at 6 months and 12 months, separately, were associated with the corresponding change in Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive, Activities of Daily Living, Beck Depression Inventory, Mini-Mental State Examination, Clinical Dementia Rating sum of boxes, memory, and executive function. Change detected by the MCI-CGIC was associated with baseline clinical severity and with change in clinical ratings over 6 and 12 months, supporting the validity of a CGIC approach in MCI. The effect size of the donepezil-placebo difference was similar to that of other outcomes at 12 months. About 40% of MCI patients were judged worse and about 11% improved, consistent with clinical experience and other ratings.

Study of the ketogenic agent AC-1202 in mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial

BackgroundAlzheimer's disease (AD) is characterized by early and region-specific declines in cerebral glucose metabolism. Ketone bodies are produced by the body during glucose deprivation and are metabolized by the brain. An oral ketogenic compound, AC-1202, was tested in subjects with probable AD to examine if ketosis could improve cognitive performance.MethodsDaily administration of AC-1202 was evaluated in 152 subjects diagnosed with mild to moderate AD in a US-based, 90-day, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study. Subjects were on a normal diet and continued taking approved AD medications. Primary cognitive end points were mean change from Baseline in the AD Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog), and global scores in the AD Cooperative Study – Clinical Global Impression of Change (ADCS-CGIC). AC-1202 was compared to Placebo in several population groups, including: intention-to-treat (ITT), per protocol, and dosage compliant groups. Results were also stratified by APOE4 carriage status (a predefined analysis based on the epsilon 4 (E4) variant of the apolipoprotein E gene). This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, registry number NCT00142805, information available at ResultsAC-1202 significantly elevated a serum ketone body (β-hydroxybutyrate) 2 hours after administration when compared to Placebo. In each of the population groups, a significant difference was found between AC-1202 and Placebo in mean change from Baseline in ADAS-Cog score on Day 45: 1.9 point difference, p = 0.0235 in ITT; 2.53 point difference, p = 0.0324 in per protocol; 2.6 point difference, p = 0.0215 in dosage compliant. Among participants who did not carry the APOE4 allele (E4(-)), a significant difference was found between AC-1202 and Placebo in mean change from Baseline in ADAS-Cog score on Day 45 and Day 90. In the ITT population, E4(-) participants (N = 55) administered AC-1202 had a significant 4.77 point difference in mean change from Baseline in ADAS-Cog scores at Day 45 (p = 0.0005) and a 3.36 point difference at Day 90 (p = 0.0148) compared to Placebo. In the per protocol population, E4(-) participants receiving AC-1202 (N = 37) differed from placebo by 5.73 points at Day 45 (p = 0.0027) and by 4.39 points at Day 90 (p = 0.0143). In the dosage compliant population, E4(-) participants receiving AC-1202 differed from placebo by 6.26 points at Day 45 (p = 0.0011, N = 38) and 5.33 points at Day 90 (p = 0.0063, N = 35). Furthermore, a significant pharmacologic response was observed between serum β-hydroxybutyrate levels and change in ADAS-Cog scores in E4(-) subjects at Day 90 (p = 0.008). Adverse events occurred more frequently in AC-1202 subjects, were primarily restricted to the gastrointestinal system, and were mainly mild to moderate in severity and transient in nature.ConclusionAC-1202 rapidly elevated serum ketone bodies in AD patients and resulted in significant differences in ADAS-Cog scores compared to the Placebo. Effects were most notable in APOE4(-) subjects who were dosage compliant.

A six‐month double‐blind, randomized, placebo‐controlled study of a transdermal patch in Alzheimer's disease–– rivastigmine patch versus capsule

To compare the efficacy, safety and tolerability of a novel rivastigmine transdermal patch with conventional rivastigmine capsules and placebo in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD). In this 24-week, multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo- and active-controlled trial, patients with probable AD were randomized to one of four treatment groups: 12 mg/day rivastigmine capsules; 10 cm2 (9.5 mg/24 h) rivastigmine patch; 20 cm(2) (17.4 mg/24 h) rivastigmine patch; or placebo. Primary efficacy measures were the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog) and Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study--Clinical Global Impression of Change (ADCS-CGIC). One thousand one hundred and ninety five AD patients from 21 countries participated in the study. Treatment differences (vs placebo) on the ADAS-Cog at Week 24 in 10 cm2 patch, 20 cm2 patch and capsule groups were 1.6 (p=0.005), 2.6 (p<0.001) and 1.6 (p=0.003). Treatment differences on the ADCS-CGIC were 0.3 (p=0.01), 0.2 (p=0.054) and 0.3 (p=0.009). Comparison between the 10 cm2 patch and the capsule revealed non-inferiority. Rates of nausea in the 10 cm2 patch and capsule groups were 7.2% and 23.1%, respectively; rates of vomiting were 6.2% and 17.0%, respectively. Moderate or severe skin irritation occurred in<or=10% patients across the four patch sizes (5, 10, 15 and 20 cm2). The target dose of 10 cm2 rivastigmine patch provides efficacy similar to the highest doses of capsules with a superior tolerability profile. The transdermal patch with rivastigmine may offer convenience important to many caregivers and patients.

Validity and Reliability of the Alzheimerʼs Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change

This article reports the development and psychometric properties of the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change (ADCS-CGIC). At present, a number of unvalidated CGIC scales are used in clinical trials, with various methods for making ratings. The ADCS-CGIC was designed on the basis of a survey of ADCS clinicians and by adapting existing instruments. It includes an organized but unstructured format, with which a clinician can address clinically relevant change. The instrument's reliability and validity were assessed in a prospective trial of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and healthy subjects over a 12-month period. It showed good short-term reliability at 1 and 2 months, with 90 and 94% of AD subjects, respectively, rated as having changed not at all or only minimally. The ADCS-CGIC's face validity was demonstrated by untreated. AD subjects rated as having worsened over time at both 6 months (56% rated as having worsened) and 12 months (81% rated as having worsened), whereas only 2% of control subjects showed minimal worsening. As a measure of predictive validity, ADCS-CGIC ratings at 12 months were significantly associated with change on four severity scales. As with other measures, change ratings were sensitive to dementia severity. Moderately impaired subjects showed greater worsening than other subjects. ADCS-CGIC ratings of greater worsening were made after the informant interview, regardless of whether informants or subjects were interviewed first. The ADCS-CGIC is a valid and reliable instrument for use in clinical trials.

Clinical evaluation of global change in Alzheimer's disease: identifying consensus.

It is important that clinicians who rate global change as part of Alzheimer's disease (AD) clinical drug trials agree on a relevant set of behaviors and information to be considered in formulating their rating. Yet, consensus among raters has been difficult to establish, and inter-rater reliability of clinical global impression of change (CGIC) ratings has been low. In preparation for the development of a new CGIC scale to be used in AD clinical trials, the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change (ADCS-CGIC), we surveyed clinicians at sites comprising the National Institute on Aging-sponsored ADCS participating centers to identify whether or not consensus regarding CGICs exists. Overall, respondents reported that a CGIC should include an assessment of the patient's function and mental status, a care giver interview, and a standardized set of questions, and it should take approximately 20 minutes per interview. Depending on a patient's level of impairment, raters consider different areas of behavior in formulating a CGIC rating. These findings demonstrate the considerable consensus regarding the CGIC rating process, and were integrated into the design of the ADCS-CGIC, currently in use.