Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 May;20(5):3352-3363.
doi: 10.1002/alz.13770. Epub 2024 Apr 1.

Minimal clinically important difference in Alzheimer's disease: Rapid review

Affiliations

Minimal clinically important difference in Alzheimer's disease: Rapid review

Ryan T Muir et al. Alzheimers Dement. 2024 May.

Abstract

Introduction: We conducted a rapid systematic review of minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) for Alzheimer's disease (AD) trial endpoints.

Methods: Two reviewers searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PubMed from inception to June 4, 2023.

Results: Ten articles were retrieved. For mild cognitive impairment (MCI), a change of +2 to +3 points on the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog), +1 points on the Clinical Dementia Rating scale sum of boxes (CDR-SB), -5 points on the integrated Alzheimer's Disease Rating Scale (iADRS), or -1 to -2 points on the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) was considered meaningful. For patients with mild AD, a change of +3 on the ADAS-Cog, +2 points on CDR-SB, -9 points on the iADRS, or -2 points on the MMSE was considered meaningful. For patients with moderate to severe AD, a change of +2 points on the CDR-SB or a change of -1.4 to -3 points on the MMSE was considered meaningful.

Conclusion: This review identified previously published MCIDs for AD trial endpoints. Input from patients and caregivers will be needed to derive more meaningful endpoints and thresholds.

Highlights: This systematic rapid review identified thresholds for minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) for recently used Alzheimer's disease (AD) trial endpoints: Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog), Clinical Dementia Rating scale sum of boxes (CDR-SB), integrated Alzheimer's Disease Rating Scale (iADRS), Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). MCIDs were higher for more severe stages of AD. Average treatment effects in recent trials of anti-amyloid disease modifying monoclonal antibodies are lower than previously published MCIDs. In future trials of disease modifying treatments for AD, the proportion of participants in each treatment group that experienced a clinically meaningful decline could be reported. More work is needed to incorporate the values and preferences of patients and care partners in deriving MCIDs.

Keywords: Alzheimer's disease; clinical trial; minimal clinically important difference.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Dr. Muir and Dr. Hill report no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Black reports supervising contracted research (fees paid to her institution) funded by GE Healthcare, Genentech, Optina, Roche, Eli Lilly, Eisa/Biogen Idec, Novo Nordisk, Lilly Avid; personal consulting fees from Roche, Biogen, Novo Nordisk, Eisai, and Eli Lilly; and payments or honoraria from Biogen, Roche, and Eisai. Dr. Smith has done personal consulting for Alnylam Pharmaceuticals and Eli Lilly and has served on an advisory board for Eisai (unpaid). Author disclosures are available in the supporting information.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Study selection.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Summary of minimal clinically important differences for Alzheimer's disease trial endpoints. Values indicate the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for decline. AD, Alzheimer's disease; ADAS‐Cog, Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale‐Cognitive; CDR‐SB, Clinical Dementia Rating scale sum of boxes; iADRS, integrated Alzheimer's Disease Rating scale; MCI, mild cognitive impairment; MMSE, Mini‐Mental State Examination; Mod, moderate.

References

    1. Guyatt GH, Osoba D, Wu AW, Wyrwich KW, Norman GR, Group CSCM. Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clin Proc. 2002;77:371‐383. - PubMed
    1. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: a clarification of its content. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10:22. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Crossnohere NL, Brundage M, Calvert MJ, et al. International guidance on the selection of patient‐reported outcome measures in clinical trials: a review. Qual Life Res. 2021;30:21‐40. - PubMed
    1. van Dyck CH, Swanson CJ, Aisen P, et al. Lecanemab in early Alzheimer's disease. N Engl J Med. 2023;388:9‐21. - PubMed
    1. Sims JR, Zimmer JA, Evans CD, et al. Donanemab in early symptomatic Alzheimer disease: the TRAILBLAZER‐ALZ 2 randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2023;330:512‐527. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms