A randomized clinical trial to evaluate home-based assessment of people over 75 years old.

INTRODUCTION: There is an unmet need for effective methods for conducting dementia prevention trials. METHODS: Home-based assessment study compared feasibility and efficiency, ability to capture change over time using in-home instruments, and ability to predict cognitive conversion using predefined triggers in a randomized clinical trial in (1) mail-in questionnaire/live telephone interviews, (2) automated telephone/interactive voice recognition, and (3) internet-based computer Kiosk technologies. Primary endpoint was defined as cognitive conversion. RESULTS: Analysis followed a modified intent-to-treat principle. Dropout rates were low and similar across technologies but participants in Kiosk were more likely to dropout earlier. Staff resources needed were higher in Kiosk. In-home instruments distinguished conversion and stable groups. Cognitively stable group showed improvement in cognitive measures. Triggering was associated with higher likelihood of conversion but statistically significant only in mail-in questionnaire/live telephone interviews. DISCUSSION: Relatively low efficiency of internet-based assessment compared with testing by live-assessors has implications for internet-based recruitment and assessment efforts currently proposed for diverse populations.

Adding delayed recall to the Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale is useful in studies of mild cognitive impairment but not Alzheimer disease.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if the addition of delayed recall (DR) assessment adds sensitivity to the cognitive subscale of the Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-cog) in clinical trials in mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer Disease (AD). BACKGROUND: Memory, particularly DR, is the most sensitive test for early detection of AD and MCI. However, it is not clear that assessment of DR adds benefit for measuring change over time after a diagnosis is made or in clinical trials. The ADAS-cog is the most commonly used tool to assess treatment efficacy in AD clinical trials. In an attempt to improve sensitivity to change, assessment of DR after the 3-trial, 10-word list was added to the standard 11-item ADAS-cog. We examined the added value of the DR in participants with MCI and AD followed for at least 1 year. DESIGN/METHODS: Data from 111 subjects with AD and 259 subjects with MCI who were randomly assigned to the placebo arm of 2 clinical trials were included. Participants with AD had Mini-Mental State Examination scores of 13 to 27 and those with MCI had 24 to 30. We calculated the ADAS-cog11 score based on the original 11 items (range: best to worse, 0 to 70), the DR item score (range: 0 to 10 words not recalled), and the ADAS-cog12 (range: 0 to 80). We assessed the rate of missing items for DR over time, the change scores, the association between scores and baseline performance, and used longitudinal mixed effects regression models to examine the rate of change. RESULTS: At baseline AD subjects were near floor on DR (8.93 ± 1.6 SD) and showed little change over 1 year (0.12 ± 1.34); the MCI subjects baseline DR was 6.2 ± 2.2 with 1-year change of 0.20±1.7. We compared standardized change (change/SD) for ADAS-cog11, and 12 in MCI and found a 10% improvement with ADAS-cog12; there was no improvement in the AD group. In a subset of MCI and AD cases with matching Mini-Mental State Examination (23 to 27), the ADAS-cog12 provided an 18% improvement in standardized change in MCI subjects, with no benefit in the AD cohort, primarily owing to increased variance. CONCLUSIONS/RELEVANCE: The addition of DR to the ADAS-cog score increased the ability to detect change in subjects with MCI over 1 year compared with the ADAS-cog11 but increased the variance in subjects with AD, even in those with mild impairment These findings speak to the need to tailor outcome measures to the specific study population and diagnosis for maximal efficiency and economy when conducting clinical trials.

ADCS Prevention Instrument Project: pharmacoeconomics: assessing health-related resource use among healthy elderly.

BACKGROUND: The Prevention Instrument project of the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study (ADCS) seeks to develop instruments to assess treatment efficacy including potential economic benefit. The Resource Use Inventory (RUI) is an instrument that has been used to capture resource utilization and costs in populations with Alzheimer disease (AD). However, resource utilization and costs for healthy, cognitively intact elderly as they begin to demonstrate cognitive deterioration are not well understood. In addition, the loss that relates to the subjects' own time as they transition through cognitive impairment is not well documented. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the utility of the RUI in a sample of cognitively intact elderly individuals living in the community and enrolled in AD prevention trials. METHODS: The RUI was administered to 644 subjects and their study partners either at home or in the clinic. For half of each sample, 3-month retesting was carried out. The RUI consisted of 9 questions. The first part of the RUI captured subjects' use of direct medical care (eg, hospitalizations) and nonmedical care (eg, home health aides). The second part of the RUI captured the time caregivers spend providing care to the subjects. The third part of the RUI captured subjects' participation in volunteer work and employment. The assessment interval for each question was the past 3 months. RESULTS: The percentage of RUI forms returned incomplete or inaccurate for both in-clinic and at-home groups was extremely low. There were no differences in utilization rates between in-clinic and at-home group for all items in the RUI. Except for use of outpatient procedures, tests, or treatments, there were no differences in utilization rates between subjects who filled out the RUI with the help of their study partners or by themselves. Items in the RUI were sensitive to subjects' cognitive and functional status and demographic characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Home-based completion of the RUI by participants in an AD prevention study is feasible, and seems to provide data that are reliable and valid. The instrument will be useful for tracking resource and time use through transition from healthy to cognitive impairment.