Edgar, Chris J.

Background: There is a need for feasible, scalable assessments to detect cognitive impairment and decline. The Cogstate Brief Battery (CBB) is validated for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and in unsupervised and bring your own device contexts. The CBB has shown usability for self-completion in the home but has not been employed in this way in a multisite clinical trial in AD. Objective: The objective of the pilot was to evaluate feasibility of at-home, self-completion of the CBB in the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) over 24 months. Methods: The CBB was included as a pilot for cognitively normal (CN) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) participants in ADNI-2, invited to take the assessment in-clinic, then at at-home over a period of 24 months follow-up. Data were analyzed to explore acceptability/usability, concordance of in-clinic and at-home assessment, and validity. Results: Data were collected for 104 participants (46 CN, 51 MCI, and 7 AD) who consented to provide CBB data. Subsequent analyses were performed for the CN and MCI groups only. Test completion rates were 100%for both the first in-clinic supervised and first at-home unsupervised assessments, with few repeat performances required. However, available follow-up data declined sharply over time. Good concordance was seen between in-clinic and at-home assessments, with non-significant and small effect size differences (Cohen’s d between -0.04 and 0.28) and generally moderate correlations (r = 0.42 to 0.73). Known groups validity was also supported (11/16 comparisons with Cohen’s d≥0.3). Conclusion: These data demonstrate the feasibility of use for the CBB for unsupervised at-home, testing, including MCI groups. Optimal approaches to the application of assessments to support compliance over time remain to be determined.

Abstract Demonstrating that treatments are clinically meaningful across the Alzheimer's disease (AD) continuum is critical for meeting our goals of accelerating a cure by 2025. While this topic has been a focus of several Alzheimer's Association Research Roundtable (AARR) meetings, there remains no consensus as to what constitutes a “clinically meaningful outcome” in the eyes of patients, clinicians, care partners, policymakers, payers, and regulatory bodies. Furthermore, the field has not come to agreement as to what constitutes a clinically meaningful treatment effect at each stage of disease severity. The AARR meeting on November 19–20, 2019, reviewed current approaches to defining clinical meaningfulness from various perspectives including those of patients and care partners, clinicians, regulators, health economists, and public policymakers. Participants discussed approaches that may confer clinical relevance at each stage of the disease continuum and fostered discussion about what should guide us in the future.