Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2021-08-03
Linking the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale-Sum of Boxes,the Clinician’s Interview-Based Impression Plus Caregiver Input,and the Clinical Global Impression Scale: Evidence based on Individual Participant Data from Five Randomized Clinical Trials of Donepezil
In patients with Alzheimer’s disease, global assessment scales, such as the Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB), the Clinician’s Interview-Based Impression Plus Caregiver Input (CIBI plus), and the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) are commonly used.
Objective:
To clinically understand and interpret the associations between these scales, we examined the linkages for the total and change scores of CDR-SB, CIBI plus, and CGI.
Methods:
Individual participant data (N = 2,198) from five pivotal randomized placebo-controlled trials of donepezil were included. Data were collected at baseline and scheduled visits for up to 6 months. Spearman’s correlation coefficients ρ were examined between corresponding total and change scores of simultaneous CDR-SB, CIBI plus, and CGI ratings. To link between the simultaneous ratings, equipercentile linking was used.
Results:
We found strong evidence that the Spearman’s correlation coefficients between the CDR-SB and CGI, and CDR-SB and CIBI plus total scores were at least adequately correlated (ρ= 0.50 to 0.71, with p < 0.01). The correlation coefficients between the change scores of CDR-SB and CGI were deemed adequate for weeks 6 to 24 (ρ= 0.44 to 0.65); the remaining correlations were smaller in magnitude (ρ= 0.09 to 0.35). Overall, the linkages were in-line with expectations, e.g., CDR-SB range score of 3-4 (= very mild dementia) was linked to a CGI score of 3 (= mildly ill), and an increase of CDR-SB of 1 was linked to a change of 5 (= minimal worsening) in both CGI and CIBI plus.
Conclusion:
The study findings can be useful for clinicians wishing to compare scores of different scales across patients. They can also help researchers understand results of studies using different scales and can facilitate meta-analyses, to increase statistical power.
WhitehousePJ, PriceDL, StrubleRG, ClarkAW, CoyleJT, DelonMR (1982) Alzheimer’s disease and senile dementia: Loss of neurons in the basal forebrain. Science215, 1237–1239.
2.
RobertP, FerrisS, GauthierS, IhlR, WinbladB, TennigkeitF (2010) Review of Alzheimer’s disease scales: Is there a need for a new multi-domain scale for therapy evaluation in medical practice?Alzheimers Res Ther2, 24.
3.
LeberP (1990) Guidelines for the clinical evaluation of antidementia drugs, US Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD, USA.
4.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) Center for Biologics Evaluation, Early Alzheimer’s Disease: Developing Drugs For Treatment, Guidelines for Industry, https://www.fda.gov/media/110903/download, Accessed February 27, 462 2021.
Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare (MHLW) and The University of Tokyo Hospital, Project to Promote the Development of Innovative Pharmaceuticals, Medical Devices, and Regenerative Medical Products: Issues to Consider in the Clinical Evaluation and Development of Drugs for Alzheimer’s Disease, https://www.pmda.go.jp/files/000221585.pdf, Accessed February 27, 2021.
7.
HughesCP, BergL, DanzigerWL, CobenLA, MartinRL (1982) A new clinical scale for the staging of dementia. Br J Psychiatry140, 566–572.
8.
McCullaMM, CoatsM, Van FleetN, DuchekJ, GrantE, MorrisJC (1989) Reliability of clinical nurse specialists in the staging of dementia. Arch Neurol46, 1210–1211.
9.
MorrisJC, ErnestoC, SchaferK, CoatsM, LeonS, SanoM, ThalLJ, WoodburyP (1997) Clinical dementia rating training and reliability in multicenter studies: The Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study experience. Neurology48, 1508–1510.
10.
NguyenVT, QuachTHT, PhamAG, TranTC (2019) Feasibility, reliability, and validity of the Vietnamese version of the Clinical Dementia Rating. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord48, 308–316.
11.
NyuntMS, ChongMS, LimWS, LeeTS, YapP, NgTP (2013) Reliability and validity of the clinical dementia rating for community-living elderly subjects without an informant. Dement Geriatr Cogn Dis Extra3, 407–416.
12.
KaramGE, KhandakjiMN, SahakianNS, DandanJC, KaramEG (2018) Validation into Arabic versions of Dementia Rating Scales, Dementia Caregivers Scales, and Dementia Research Instruments. Alzheimers Dement (Amst)10, 796–801.
13.
KnopmanDS, KnappMJ, GraconSI, DavisCS (1994) The Clinician Interview-Based Impression (CIBI): A clinician’s global change rating scale in Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology44, 2315–2321.
14.
ReisbergB, FerrisSH (1994) Clinician’s interview-based impression of change-plus. In Guide to Assessment Scales in Dementia,Kelly C, Newton-Howes G, eds. Science Press, London.
15.
GuyW (1976) ECDEU assessment manual for psychopharmacology-Revised, National Institute of Mental Health, Rockville, MD, USA.
16.
FurukawaTA, Katherine ShearM, BarlowDH, GormanJM, WoodsSW, MoneyR, EtschelE, EngelRR, LeuchtS (2009) Evidence-based guidelines for interpretation of the Panic Disorder Severity Scale. Depress Anxiety26, 922–929.
17.
BandelowB, BaldwinDS, DolbergOT, AndersenHF, SteinDJ (2006) What is the threshold for symptomatic response and remission for major depressive disorder, panic disorder, social anxiety disorder, and generalized anxiety disorder?J Clin Psychiatry67, 1428–1434.
18.
ZaiderTI, HeimbergRG, FrescoDM, SchneierFR, LiebowitzMR (2003) Evaluation of the clinical global impression scale among individuals with social anxiety disorder. Psychol Med33, 611–622.
19.
BoboWV, AngleroGC, JenkinsG, Hall-FlavinDK, WeinshilboumR, BiernackaJM (2016) Validation of the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale definition of response for adults with major depressive disorder using equipercentile linking to Clinical Global Impression scale ratings: Analysis of Pharmacogenomic Research Network Antidepressant Medication Pharmacogenomic Study (PGRN-AMPS) data. Hum Psychopharmacol31, 185–192.
20.
LeuchtS, FennemaH, EngelRR, Kaspers-JanssenM, LeppingP, SzegediA (2017) What does the MADRS mean? Equipercentile linking with the CGI using a company database of mirtazapine studies. J Affect Disord210, 287–293.
21.
LeuchtS, KaneJM, EtschelE, KisslingW, HamannJ, EngelRR (2006) Linking the PANSS, BPRS, and CGI: Clinical implications. Neuropsychopharmacology31, 2318–2325.
22.
LevineSZ, RabinowitzJ, EngelR, EtschelE, LeuchtS (2008) Extrapolation between measures of symptom severity and change: An examination of the PANSS and CGI. Schizophr Res98, 318–322.
23.
BalsisS, BengeJF, LoweDA, GeraciL, DoodyRS (2015) How do scores on the ADAS-Cog, MMSE, and CDR-SOB correspond?Clin Neuropsychol29, 1002–1009.
24.
GrossAL, Kueider-PaisleyAM, SullivanC, SchretlenD, International Neuropsychological Normative Database Initiative (2019) Comparison of approaches for equating different versions of the Mini-Mental State Examination administered in 22 studies. Am J Epidemiol188, 2202–2212.
25.
RoalfDR, MooreTM, Mechanic-HamiltonD, WolkDA, ArnoldSE, WeintraubDA, MobergPJ (2017) Bridging cognitive screening tests in neurologic disorders: A crosswalk between the short Montreal Cognitive Assessment and Mini-Mental State Examination. Alzheimers Dement13, 947–952.
26.
LevineSZ, KazufumiY, GoldbergY, SamaraM, CiprianiA, EfthimiouO, IwatsuboT, LeuchtS, FurukawaTA (2021) Linking the Mini-Mental State Examination, the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale, and the Severe Impairment Battery: Evidence from individual participant data from five randomized clinical trials of donepezil. Evid Based Ment Health24, 56–61.
27.
LynchCA, WalshC, BlancoA, MoranM, CoenRF, WalshJB, LawlorBA (2006) The clinical dementia rating sum of box score in mild dementia. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord21, 40–43.
28.
O’BryantSE, LacritzLH, HallJ, WaringSC, ChanW, KhodrZG, MassmanPJ, HobsonV, CullumCM (2010) Validation of the new interpretive guidelines for the clinical dementia rating scale sum of boxes score in the national Alzheimer’s coordinating center database. Arch Neurol67, 746–749.
29.
O’BryantSE, WaringSC, CullumCM, HallJ, LacritzL, MassmanPJ, LupoPJ, ReischJS, DoodyR, Texas Alzheimer’s Research C (2008) Staging dementia using Clinical Dementia Rating Scale Sum of Boxes scores: A Texas Alzheimer’s research consortium study. Arch Neurol65, 1091–1095.
30.
PostMW (2016) What to do with “moderate” reliability and validity coefficients?Arch Phys Med Rehabil97, 1051–1052.
31.
AlbanoAD (2016) equate: An R package for observed-score linking and equating. J Stat Softw74, doi: 10.18637/jss.v074.i08
32.
SamaraMT, EngelRR, MillierA, KandenweinJ, ToumiM, LeuchtS (2014) Equipercentile linking of scales measuring functioning and symptoms: Examining the GAF, SOFAS, CGI-S, and PANSS. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol24, 1767–1772.
33.
R Core Team (2013) R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
34.
HommaA, TakedaM, ImaiY, UdakaF, HasegawaK, KameyamaM, NishimuraT (2000) Clinical efficacy and safety of donepezil on cognitive and global function in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. A 24-week, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in Japan. E2020 Study Group. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord11, 299–313.
35.
BurnsA, RossorM, HeckerJ, GauthierS, PetitH, MollerHJ, RogersSL, FriedhoffLT (1999) The effects of donepezil in Alzheimer’s disease - results from a multinational trial. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord10, 237–244.
36.
RogersSL, FriedhoffLT (1996) The efficacy and safety of donepezil in patients with Alzheimer’s disease: Results of a US multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. The Donepezil Study Group. Dementia7, 293–303.
37.
RogersSL, DoodyRS, MohsRC, FriedhoffLT (1998) Donepezil improves cognition and global function in Alzheimer disease: A 15-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Donepezil Study Group. Arch Intern Med158, 1021–1031.
38.
RogersSL, FarlowMR, DoodyRS, MohsR, FriedhoffLT (1998) A 24-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of donepezil in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Donepezil Study Group. Neurology50, 136–145.
39.
American Psychiatric Association (1987) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. American Psychiatric Association, Washington, DC.
40.
American Psychiatric Association (1994) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. American Psychiatric Association, Washington, DC.
41.
CronbachLJ, FurbyL (1970) How we should measure “change”: Or should we?Psychol Bull74, 68–80.
42.
GuZ, EmonsWHM, SijtsmaK (2018) Review of issues about classical change scores: A multilevel modeling perspective on some enduring beliefs. Psychometrika83, 674–695.
43.
AndrewsJS, DesaiU, KirsonNY, ZichlinML, BallDE, MatthewsBR (2019) Disease severity and minimal clinically important differences in clinical outcome assessments for Alzheimer’s disease clinical trials. Alzheimers Dement (N Y)5, 354–363.
44.
KnopmanDS (2008) Clinical trial design issues in mild to moderate Alzheimer disease. Cogn Behav Neurol21, 197–201.
45.
QuinnJ, MooreM, BensonDF, ClarkCM, DoodyR, JagustW, KnopmanD, KayeJA (2002) A videotaped CIBIC for dementia patients: Validity and reliability in a simulated clinical trial. Neurology58, 433–437.
46.
HorikoshiS, KuniiY, MatsumotoJ, GotohD, MiuraI, YabeH (2020) Does treatment response with antidementia drugs after 6 months in Alzheimer’s disease predict long-term treatment outcome?J Clin Psychopharmacol40, 195–197.
47.
RockwoodK, WallackM, TallisR (2003) The treatment of Alzheimer’s disease: Success short of cure. Lancet Neurol2, 630–633.
48.
RockwoodK, MorrisJC (2006) Global assessment measures. In Clinical Diagnosis and Management of Alzheimer’s Disease, Gauthier S, ed. Informa Healthcare, London.
49.
Alzheimer’s A (2015) 2015 Alzheimer’s disease facts and figures. Alzheimers Dement11, 332–384.
50.
SchneiderLS, SanoM (2009) Current Alzheimer’s disease clinical trials: Methods and placebo outcomes. Alzheimers Dement5, 388–397.
51.
VellasB, AndrieuS, SampaioC, WilcockG, European Task Force group (2007) Disease-modifying trials in Alzheimer’s disease: A European task force consensus. Lancet Neurol6, 56–62.
52.
MalmivaaraA (2019) Generalizability of findings from randomized controlled trials is limited in the leading general medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol107, 36–41.
53.
CanevelliM, BrunoG, VanacoreN, de LenaC, CesariM (2016) Are we really tackling the “evidence-based medicine issue” in Alzheimer’s disease?Eur J Intern Med35, e29–e30.
