Journal Mobile Options
Table of Contents
Vol. 23, No. 3, 2007
Issue release date: February 2007
Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2007;23:168–174

Predictive Value of 6-Month Decline in ADAS-cog for Survival without Severe Alzheimer’s Disease

Helmer C. · Andrieu S. · Pérès K. · Orgogozo J.-M. · Vellas B. · Dartigues J.-F.
aINSERM U593, Université de Bordeaux-2, et bFédération de Neurologie, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Bordeaux, Bordeaux, et cINSERM U558 et dCentre Hospitalier Universitaire, Toulouse, France

Individual Users: Register with Karger Login Information

Please create your User ID & Password

Contact Information

I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.

To view the fulltext, please log in

To view the pdf, please log in


Background/Aims: To determine the predictive value of the 6-month evolution of the ADAS-cog score in initially mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease (AD) patients on the risk of death or severe dementia (MMSE <10) within 2 years. Methods: Cognition was assessed every 6 months using the ADAS-cog scale in the study, a cohort of AD patients. Six classes of ADAS-cog evolution were distinguished, from the severest deterioration (decline ≧7 points) to the greatest cognitive improvement (gain ≧4 points). Results: Among 536 AD patients, 53 (9.9%) had a 6-month decline of 7 points or more. This group with the severest deterioration was significantly associated with the risk of severe dementia or death at 2 years (relative risk, RR = 3.8, 95% confidence interval, CI = 2.1–6.8), even after adjustment for baseline MMSE, disability and ADAS-cog score (RR = 2.6, 95% CI = 1.4–5.0). In addition, subjects with a decline by at least 4 points were also at greater risk of severe dementia. Conclusion: These results confirm the value of the ADAS-cog scale as a judgement criterion in clinical trials since it is a good surrogate marker of long-term prognosis. The proportion of fast decliners on the ADAS-cog could be a helpful judgement criterion for future trials in AD.

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.


  1. Rosen WG, Mohs RC, Davis KL: A new rating scale for Alzheimer’s disease. Am J Psychiatry 1984;141:1356–1364.
  2. Food Drugs and Cosmetic Reports: FDA guidance on Alzheimer’s drug clinical utility assessments. Washington,FDA, 1992, pp 13–15.
  3. European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA): Note for guidance on medicinal products in the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. London, European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA), Human Medicines Evaluation Unit, Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP), 1997.
  4. Rosler M, Anand R, Cicin-Sain A, Gauthier S, Agid Y, Dal-Bianco P, Stahelin HB, Hartman R, Gharabawi M: Efficacy and safety of rivastigmine in patients with Alzheimer’s disease: international randomised controlled trial. BMJ 1999;318:633–638.
  5. Birks J: Cholinesterase inhibitors for Alzheimer’s disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006;1:CD005593.
  6. Kaduszkiewicz H, Zimmermann T, Beck-Bornholdt HP, van den Bussche H: Cholinesterase inhibitors for patients with Alzheimer’s disease: systematic review of randomised clinical trials. BMJ 2005;331:321–327.
  7. Lanctôt KL, Herrmann N, Yau KK, Khan LR, Liu BA, Loulou MM, Einarson TR: Efficacy and safety of cholinesterase inhibitors in Alzheimer’s disease: a meta-analysis. Can Med Assoc J 2003;169:557–564.
  8. Schneider LS: The post-modern world of Alzheimer’s disease trials: how much is an ADAS-cog point worth in central London? Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2006;21:9–13.
  9. Takeda A, Loveman E, Clegg A, Kirby J, Picot J, Payne E, Green C: A systematic review of the clinical effectiveness of donepezil, rivastigmine and galantamine on cognition, quality of life and adverse events in Alzheimer’s disease. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2006;21:17–28.
  10. Hogan DB: Donepezil for severe Alzheimer’s disease. Lancet 2006;367:1031–1032.
  11. Rimmer E, Wojciechowska M, Stave C, Sganga A, O’Connell B: Implications of the Facing Dementia Survey for the general population, patients and caregivers across Europe. Int J Clin Pract 2005;59(suppl 146):17–24.

    External Resources

  12. Vellas B, Gauthier S, Allain H, Andrieu S, Aquino JP, Berrut G, Berthel M, Blanchard F, Camus V, Dartigues JF, Dubois B, Forette F, Franco A, Gonthier R, Grand A, Hervy MP, Jeandel C, Joel ME, Jouanny P, Lebert F, Michot P, Montastruc JL, Nourhashemi F, Ousset PJ, Pariente J, Rigaud AS, Robert P, Ruault G, Strubel D, Touchon J, Verny M, Vetel JM: Consensus statement on dementia of Alzheimer type in the severe stage. J Nutr Health Aging 2005;9:330–338.
  13. Feldman HH, Woodward M: The staging and assessment of moderate to severe Alzheimer disease. Neurology 2005;65(suppl 3):S10–S17.
  14. Gillette-Guyonnet S, Nourhashemi F, Andrieu S, Cantet C, Micas M, Ousset PJ, Vellas B: The REAL.FR research program on Alzheimer’s disease and its management: methods and preliminary results. J Nutr Health Aging 2003;7:91–96.
  15. American Psychiatry Association: Diagnosis and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, ed 4 (DSM-IV). Washington, APA, 1994.
  16. McKhann G, Drachman D, Folstein M, Katzman R, Price D, Stadlan E: Clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease: report of the NINCDS-ADRDA work group under the auspices of Department of Health and Human services Task Force on Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology 1984;34:939–944.
  17. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR: Mini Mental State: a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 1975;12:189–192.
  18. Commenges D, Letenneur L, Joly P, Alioum A, Dartigues JF: Modelling age-specific risk: application to dementia. Stat Med 1998;17:1973–1988.
  19. Hui JS, Wilson RS, Bennett DA, Bienias JL, Gilley DW, Evans DA: Rate of cognitive decline and mortality in Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology 2003;61:1356–1361.
  20. Nguyen HT, Black SA, Ray LA, Espino DV, Markides KS: Cognitive impairment and mortality in older Mexican Americans. J Am Geriatr Soc 2003;51:178–183.
  21. National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE): Appraisal consultation document: Alzheimer’s disease – donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine and memantine (review). 2006. 245908.

Pay-per-View Options
Direct payment This item at the regular price: USD 38.00
Payment from account With a Karger Pay-per-View account (down payment USD 150) you profit from a special rate for this and other single items.
This item at the discounted price: USD 26.50