Minimal clinically important difference in Alzheimer's disease: Rapid review
- PMID: 38561021
- PMCID: PMC11095473
- DOI: 10.1002/alz.13770
Minimal clinically important difference in Alzheimer's disease: Rapid review
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.
© 2024 The Authors. Alzheimer's & Dementia published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Alzheimer's Association.
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


References
-
- 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
-
- 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
-
- van Dyck CH, Swanson CJ, Aisen P, et al. Lecanemab in early Alzheimer's disease. N Engl J Med. 2023;388:9‐21. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical