To view the fulltext, please log in
To view the pdf, please log in
- FullText & PDF
- Unlimited re-access via MyKarger (new!)
- Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use
- Reduced rates with a PPV account
- Rent for 48h to view
- Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices
- Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud
- Printing and saving restriction apply
Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00
- Automatic perpetual access to all articles of the subscribed year(s)
- Unlimited re-access via Subscriber Login or MyKarger
- Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use
Article / Publication Details
Background: The results of clinical trials are routinely presented in terms of statistical significance, which may or may not indicate clinical significance. Analysis of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of cognitive scales has received little attention to date. Objectives: By reviewing the key methodological features (sample size, duration, statistical and clinical significance) of clinical trials examining the efficacy of tacrine in the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), we assessed their ability to detect clinically important changes in cognition. Design: The value for the MCID of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) was determined by surveying specialists in neurology and geriatric medicine. This value was then used to interpret the clinical significance of the results of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of tacrine in the treatment of AD and to retrospectively determine their optimal sample size and trial duration. Results: The mean survey MCID for the MMSE was 3.72 (95% confidence interval 3.50–3.95) points. Only 2 of 12 tacrine RCTs using the MMSE found a statistically significant difference in MMSE scores for patients taking tacrine compared with those taking placebo. These improvements were not clinically significant when compared with the survey MMSE MCID. For parallel trials of tacrine in AD, the smallest sample size and minimum trial duration required to demonstrate a clinically significant difference were calculated to be 53 subjects and 1 year, respectively. Five of the 7 parallel trials met the required sample size; however, none of them met the criteria for trial duration. Conclusions: When using the MMSE as an outcome measure, no tacrine trial reported results that were clinically significant as perceived by clinicians working with dementia patients. Application of a range of plausible MCIDs to the parallel design RCTs also demonstrated that 2 of 7 of these trials did not have sufficient sample size, and none had sufficient duration of treatment to reliably detect clinically meaningful changes in cognition. Future clinical trials in this area will need to incorporate the evolving knowledge of MCIDs in order to increase their chance of detecting clinically relevant results.
Article / Publication Details
Copyright / Drug Dosage
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in goverment regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
- Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH: Measurement of health status: Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Controlled Clin Trials 1989;10:407–415.
- Clarfield AM: The reversible dementias: Do they reverse? Ann Intern Med 1988;109:476–486.
- Molnar FJ, Man-Son-Hing M, St John P, et al: National survey on the treatment of and future research into subcortical vascular dementia. Can J Neurol Sci 1998;25:320–324.
- Wolfson C, Moride Y, Perrault A, et al: A Study of the Efficacy, Effectiveness, and Economic Impact of Tacrine in Alzheimer’s Disease. Published by the Canadian Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA), June 1997.
- Qizilbash N, Birks J, Lopez Arrieta J, et al: The efficacy of Tacrine in Alzheimer’s disease; in Beppu H, Huppert F, Kaye J, Qizilbash N (Coordinating Editor), Schneider L, van Dongen M (eds): Dementia & Cognitive Module of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (updated 3 June 1997). Available in The Cochrane Library (database on disk and CDROM). The Cochrane Collaboration, Issue 3. Oxford, Update Software, 1997, updated quarterly.
- Weinstein HC, Teunisse S, van Gool WA: Tetrahydroaminoacridine and lecithin in the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. Effect on cognition, functioning in daily life, behavioral disturbances and burden experienced by carers. J Neurol 1991;238:34–38.
- Farlow M, Gracon SI, Hershey LA, et al., for the Tacrine Study Group: A controlled clinical trial of tacrine in Alzheimer’s disease. JAMA 1992;268:2523–2529.
- Davis KL, Thal LJ, Gamzu ER, et al., for the Tacrine Collaborative Study Group: A double-blind, placebo-controlled multicentre study of tacrine for Alzheimer’s disease. N Engl J Med 1992;327:1253–1259.
- Knapp MJ, Knopman DS, Solomon PR, for the tacrine Study Group: A 30-week randomized controlled trial of high-dose tacrine in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. JAMA 1994;271:985–991.
- Maltby N, Broe GA, Creasy H, et al: Efficacy of tacrine and lecithin in mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease: A double-blind trial. BMJ 1994;308:879–883.
- Wood PC, Castleden M: A double-blind, placebo controlled, multi-centre study of tacrine for Alzheimer’s disease. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 1994;9:649–654.
- Forette F, Hoover T, Gracon S, et al: A double-blind, placebo-controlled, enriched population study of tacrine in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Eur J Neurol 1995;2:229–238.
- Gauthier S, Bouchard R, Lamontagne A, et al: Tetrahydroaminoacridine-lecithin combination treatment in patients with intermediate-stage Alzheimer’s disease. Results of a Canadian double-blind, crossover, multicentre study. N Engl J Med 1990;322:1272–1276.
- Chatellier G, Lacomblez L, for Groupe Français d’Etude de la Tetrahydroaminoacridine: Tacrine (tetrahydroaminoacridine; THA) and lecithin in senile dementia of the Alzheimer’s type: A multicentre trial. BMJ 1990;300:495–499.
- Molloy DW, Guyatt GH, Wilson DB, et al: Effect of tetrahydroaminoacridine on cognition, function and behavior in Alzheimer’s disease. Can Med Assoc J 1991;144:29–34.
- Eagger SA, Levy R, Sahakian BJ: Tacrine in Alzheimer’s disease. Lancet 1991;337:989–992.
- Wilcock GK, Surmon DJ, Scott M, et al: An evaluation of the efficacy and safety of tetrahydroaminoacridine (THA) without lecithin in the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. Age Ageing 1993;22:316–324.
- Foster NL, Peterson RC, Gracon SI, Lewis K: An enriched-population, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study of tacrine and lecithin in Alzheimer’s disease. Dementia 1996;7:260–266.
- Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee Meeting, July 7, 1989. Rockville, Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Food and Drug Administration, 1989, pp 227.
- Salmon DP, Thal LJ, Butters N, et al: Longitudinal evaluation of dementia of the Alzheimer type: A comparison of the 3 standardized mental status examinations. Neurology 1990;40:1225–1230.
- Uhlman RF, Larson EB, Koepsell TD: Hearing impairment and cognitive decline in senile dementia of the Alzheimer’s type. J Am Geriatr Soc 1986;34:207–210.
- Becker JT, Huff FJ, Nebes RD, et al: Neuropsychological function in Alzheimer’s disease: Pattern of impairment and rates of progression. Arch Neurol 1984;45:263–268.
- Yesavage JA, Poulsen AB, Sheikh J, et al: Rates of change of common measures of impairment in senile dementia of the Alzheimer’s type. Psychopharmacol Bull 1988;24:531–534.
- Teri L, Hughes JP, Larson EB: Cognitive deterioration in Alzheimer’s disease: Behavioral and health factors. J Gerontol 1990;45:P58–P63.
- Rogers SL, Friedhoff LT, for the Donepezil Study Group: The efficacy and safety of donepezil in patients with Alzheimer’s disease: Results of a US multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Dementia 1996;7:293–303.
- Rogers SL, Farlow MD, Mohs R, for the Donepezil Study Group: A 24 week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of donepezil in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology 1998;50:136–145.
- Redelmeier DA, Guyatt GH, Goldstein RS: Assessing minimal important difference in symptoms: A comparison of two techniques. J Clin Epidemiol 1996;49:1215–1219.
- Stern RG, Mohs RC, Davidson M, et al: A longitudinal study of Alzheimer’s disease: Measurement, rate and predictors of cognitive deterioration. Am J Psychiatry 1994;151:390–396.