Alzheimer Disease: Edland S

Sano M, Zhu CW, Whitehouse PJ, Edland S, Jin S, Ernstrom K, Thomas RG, Thal LJ, Ferris SH, Anonymous00342. · Mount Sinai School of Medicine, James J Peters VAMC, Bronx, NY 10468, USA. · Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. · Pubmed #17135812 No free full text.

Abstract: 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.

Ferris SH, Aisen PS, Cummings J, Galasko D, Salmon DP, Schneider L, Sano M, Whitehouse PJ, Edland S, Thal LJ, Anonymous00336. · Alzheimer's Disease Center, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY 10016, USA. · Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. · Pubmed #17135805 No free full text.

Abstract: One objective of the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study (ADCS) is to develop new or improved instruments and assessment methods for evaluating treatment efficacy in Alzheimer disease (AD) clinical trials. The ADCS Instrument Committee has previously helped to define the state of the art in assessment for AD and Mild Cognitive Impairment clinical trials. We are now entering an exciting era of primary prevention trials to evaluate promising treatments that may delay disease onset and there is a need to develop appropriate instruments for these trials. The ADCS instrument committee has undertaken a project to develop instruments for prevention studies that assess domains known to be important in AD. Prevention trials are long and require large numbers of subjects, making them costly and requiring a high burden of participation for subjects. The current study focused on developing instruments that can be completed at home and in the clinic. The instruments are being evaluated in a cohort of nondemented elderly participating in a 4-year longitudinal study that simulates the design of a primary prevention trial. This report describes the design, baseline characteristics, and some longitudinal outcomes of the study cohort through the completion of the first 2 years of follow-up. We also describe the assessment domains to be measured with our new experimental instruments. This study recruited 644 subjects, 75 years of age and older. Participation in a "book club" that provided free books of interest to elders was offered as a recruitment incentive. Approximately 23% had some mild cognitive symptoms consistent with a Clinical Dementia Rating of 0.5. All subjects received a standardized in-clinic evaluation at baseline, which is repeated annually for 4 years to identify cases suspected of developing dementia and to measure longitudinal change on established clinical assessments. Subjects completed a set of self-administered experimental instruments at home or in the clinic designed to assess cognitive function and behavior, global change, activities of daily living, quality of life, and resource use. An additional "mail-in cognitive function questionnaire" was obtained separately by mail, 1 month before the other assessments. To evaluate the feasibility, efficiency, and validity of the home-based instruments in comparison with acquiring the same information during a clinic visit, subjects were randomized to 1 of 2 conditions in which the baseline and annual follow-up assessments are completed either at home ("home group") or at the study site during their clinic visits ("clinic group"). This initial report describes the ongoing 4-year longitudinal study and provides baseline results, which confirm the feasibility of obtaining home-based clinical information via mail or telephone. Initial results for the experimental instruments and for the book club are reported in separate accompanying articles.