P4‐312: Withdrawn

François Mouton-Liger,Claire Abadie,ElianeMeurs,Claire Paquet,Kristina Martens,Ebrima Gibbs,Jing Wang,Xiaobing Han,Masoud Yousefi,Cory L. Nykiforuk,Laura Saward,Cheryl Wellington,Neil R. Cashman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2015.08.142

2015-01-01

Abstract:primary efficacy measure in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) clinical trials. Earlier research has demonstrated considerable variability in how raters have been trained to administer and score the ADAS-Cog in clinical trials. Moreover, prior research has also demonstrated that ADAS-Cog error rates among clinical trial raters tend to be upwards of 32% on initial administration when using the paper-pencil version of the scale. Technological advancements are being incorporated into the conduct of AD clinical trials. One example is the use of electronic versions of assessment scales. An enhanced electronic version of the ADAS-Cog was used in a multi-national clinical trial of subjects with mild AD. We evaluated its impact on overall data quality. Methods: After being trained and certified to rate the ADAS-Cog, all raters’ performance regarding accuracy in scale administration and scoring was assessed by a calibrated clinician at the initial Screening visit. The electronic ADAS-Cog (eADAS-Cog) used in this trial was designed to be equivalent to the paper version of the scale. Additionally, the eADASCog was augmented with standardized instructions and scoring conventions taken directly from the ADAS-Cog manual and study specific training curriculum. These enhancements were intended to increase the likelihood the scale would be consistently administered and scored according to standard conventions. Results: 1009 eADAS-Cogs at Screening were reviewed by a calibrated clinician to assess accuracy of rater scoring. 101 of these eADAS-Cog reviews, or 10%, required a Contact with the rater due to an error noted in scoring. This represents a significant reduction (p < 0.001) in error rates compared to the previously reported 32% found with the paper-pencil version of the scale. Conclusions:The use of an eADAS-Cog designed with enhancements beyond the paper-pencil version, coupled with an instudy ratings surveillance program to identify errors in scoring, can significantly improve data quality by reducing rater error, enhancing standardized administration/scoring and minimizing rater drift.