Home › Research › Treatments
Cognitive and functional decline and their relationship in patients with mild Alzheimer's dementia
Liu-Seifert H, Siemers E, Sundell K, Price K, Han B, Selzler K, Aisen P, Cummings J et al.. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD, 2015-01-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background In patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD), the relationship between cognitive and functional progression is not fully understood; however, functional decline has been postulated to follow cognitive decline. Objective To assess the relationship between cognitive and functional treatment effects in mild AD dementia patients. Methods Data of patients with mild AD were pooled from two multicenter, double-blind, Phase 3 studies. Patients were randomized to infusions of 400-mg solanezumab (n = 654), or placebo (n = 660) every 4 weeks for 18 months. Cognitive and functional outcome measures were assessed using the AD Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog) and the AD Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living (ADCS-ADL), respectively. Analyses included comparisons among normalized scales, correlations between outcome measures, and path analyses to model the relationship of treatment effect on cognition and function. Results Normalized ADAS-Cog and ADCS-ADL scales showed cognitive impairment was more evident than functional impairment in mild AD. The correlation between cognition and function increased over time. Path analyses demonstrated that 87% of the treatment effect on function was driven by the treatment effect on cognition, with the remaining 13% due to direct treatment effect. Conclusion Findings from this study are consistent with the hypothesis that functional impairment is primarily driven by and follows cognitive decline in mild AD dementia. The cognitive treatment effect appeared to explain the majority of the functional treatment effect. It is possible that a cognitive treatment effect may be considered as a leading indicator for functional outcomes in an 18-month clinical trial for milder stages of AD.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Liu-Seifert, H., Siemers, E., Sundell, K., Price, K., Han, B., Selzler, K., et al. (2015). Cognitive and functional decline and their relationship in patients with mild Alzheimer's dementia. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-140792
Vancouver
Liu-Seifert H, Siemers E, Sundell K, Price K, Han B, Selzler K, et al. Cognitive and functional decline and their relationship in patients with mild Alzheimer's dementia. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. 2015. doi:10.3233/jad-140792. PMID: 25125457.
BibTeX
@article{liuseifert2015-25125457,
author = {Liu-Seifert, H. and Siemers, E. and Sundell, K. and Price, K. and Han, B. and Selzler, K. and Aisen, P. and Cummings, J. and others},
title = {{Cognitive and functional decline and their relationship in patients with mild Alzheimer's dementia}},
journal = {Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD},
year = {2015},
doi = {10.3233/jad-140792},
pmid = {25125457},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-140792}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results Normalized ADAS-Cog and ADCS-ADL scales showed cognitive impairment was more evident than functional impairment in mild AD.
- Path analyses demonstrated that 87% of the treatment effect on function was driven by the treatment effect on cognition, with the remaining 13% due to direct treatment effect.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Study designclinical trial
- Participants654
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 74/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a large phase 3 trial. Scored zero for effect reported because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record and institution's track record, so those were left out: it earned 45 of the 61 points we could judge it on, which is 74 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 11 / 12 | A large phase 3 trial (from PubMed type “Clinical Trial, Phase III”) |
| Strength of evidence | 5 / 5 | Rated “high” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2015 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 654 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 2 / 2 | Randomised and blinded or placebo-controlled (as stated in the record) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 2 / 3 | PubMed indexes it as a multicentre study |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 25125457) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 45 / 61 | Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 45 of the 61 points we could judge it on is 74 out of 100. |
| Total | 74 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Treatments
Also tagged “functional-decline”
2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “functional-decline”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.