Schrack, Jennifer A.

AbstractBackgroundPrior longitudinal studies among older adults have documented associations between hearing loss and changes in brain morphology. Whether interventions involving hearing aids can reduce age‐related atrophy is unknown. A substudy within the Aging and Cognitive Health Evaluation in Elders (ACHIEVE, Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03243422) randomized controlled trial tested the effect of a best‐practices hearing intervention versus health education control on three‐year change in cortical thickness among older adults with hearing loss.MethodThe ACHIEVE study enrolled 977 community‐dwelling adults aged 70‐84 years at baseline (2018‐2019) with untreated hearing loss (better ear pure tone average [0.5‐4 kHz] ≥30 and <70 dB HL) and without substantial cognitive impairment from four sites across the U.S. (Jackson, MS, Forsyth County, NC, Minneapolis, MN, Washington County, MD). Participants were randomized to a hearing intervention (provision of hearing aids and related technologies, counseling, and education) or a health education control (individual sessions with a health educator covering topics relevant to chronic disease and disability prevention). Three‐dimensional magnetic resonance imaging was performed on 3 Tesla Siemens scanners in a subsample of 445 participants at the ACHIEVE baseline and three‐year follow‐up. Linear mixed effects models were used in intention‐to‐treat analyses to estimate three‐year change in cortical thickness. All models adjusted for baseline measures of hearing loss, recruitment source, site, age, sex, and education. Missing outcome and covariate data was imputed to mitigate bias caused by informative attrition.ResultAt baseline, 224 participants were women (50.3%), 52 participants were Black (11.7%), and the mean (SD) age was 76.4 (4.0) years old (Table 1). Compared to the health education control, the hearing intervention exhibited a nominally protective effect on three‐year change in average cortical thickness (Figure 1). The greatest effect size for cortical thickness was observed in the occipital lobe, while the smallest effect size was detected in the temporal lobe. Statistically significant effects were detected in the pars orbitalis, rostral anterior cingulate, posterior cingulate, and isthmus cingulate (Figure 2).ConclusionHearing aid use may reduce decline in cortical thickness among older adults. The effects of hearing aids may be greatest in regions other than those associated with the auditory cortex.

AbstractBackgroundHearing loss is associated with greater cognitive decline and incident dementia. Whether hearing intervention could reduce cognitive decline in older adults with hearing loss is unknown.MethodThe ACHIEVE study is a randomized trial (NCT03243422) of 70‐84 year‐old adults with untreated hearing loss and free from substantial cognitive impairment that took place at four U.S. sites. Participants were recruited from two study populations: 1) a group of adults participating in a longstanding observational study of cardiovascular health (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities [ARIC] study), and 2) a group of healthy de novo community volunteers. Participants were randomised (1:1) to hearing intervention (HI; audiological counseling and provision of hearing aids) or a successful aging health education control intervention (SA; sessions with a health educator on chronic disease prevention). The primary intention‐to‐treat endpoint was 3‐year change in a global cognition standardized factor score from a comprehensive neurocognitive battery.Result977 participants (238 ARIC, 739 de novo) underwent randomisation; 490 were assigned to HI and 487 to SA control. Participants from ARIC were older, had more risk factors for cognitive decline, and had lower baseline cognitive scores than the de novo group. In the primary analysis combining the ARIC and de novo groups, 3‐year cognitive change (in S.D. units) was not significantly different between HI and SA control (HI: ‐0·200 [95% CI: ‐0·256,‐0·144]; SA: ‐0·202 [‐0·258,‐0·145]; Difference 0·002 [‐0·077,0·081],p = 0·96). However, prespecified analyses demonstrated significant differences in the effect of HI on cognitive change between the ARIC and de novo group (p interaction = 0·010). In the ARIC group, HI was associated with a 48% reduction in 3‐year cognitive change compared to SA control (HI: ‐0·211 [‐0·349,‐0·073]; SA: ‐0·402 [‐0·536, ‐0·267]; Difference 0·191 [0·022,0·360,p = 0·027]). In the de novo group, cognitive change was not significantly different between HI and SA control (HI: ‐0·213 [‐0·277,‐0·148]; SA: ‐0·151 [‐0·215,‐0·087]; Difference ‐0·061 [‐0·151,0·028,p = 0·18]). The rate of cognitive change among control participants was observed to be 2.7‐fold faster in the ARIC versus de novo group.ConclusionHearing intervention may have a significant effect on reducing cognitive change over 3 years in populations of older adults at increased risk for cognitive decline.

AbstractBackgroundHearing loss is associated with cognitive decline and dementia. The ongoing ACHIEVE Study was the first randomized trial to test the effects of hearing treatment on three‐year cognitive change. The ACHIEVE – Brain Health Follow‐Up Study will extend follow‐up to six years post‐randomization to determine the long‐term and potentially nonlinear effects of hearing treatment vs. health education control with delayed treatment on dementia and cognitive decline.MethodsParticipants will be recruited from the 977 participants enrolled in the ACHIEVE Study. After Year 3, hearing intervention participants will continue to receive hearing care and the control group will be offered the hearing intervention. Co‐primary study outcomes will be cognitive decline and a composite of incident mild cognitive impairment (MCI)/probable dementia. Secondary outcomes include domain‐specific cognitive decline, brain structural changes on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and other functional outcomes (e.g., physical activity, social isolation). Power analyses for the co‐primary outcomes assumed an annual attrition rate of 10% and an immediate, lagged, or cumulative treatment effect.ResultsWhen comparing multi‐year cognitive decline (Table 1), in the scenario of a constant treatment effect that assumes a strong and immediate treatment effect, the benefit of extended follow‐up is not greater power, but additional information on the long‐term effects of hearing intervention. In a scenario of a lagged treatment effect, a two‐year lag in the treatment effect causes the Year 3 assessment to be severely underpowered (28%) but provides sufficient power (80%) at Year 6 despite attrition. In a scenario of a cumulative treatment effect that increases with time, analyses are similarly underpowered at Year 3 (65%) but not at Year 6 (82%). The same pattern is evident when estimating the power at Year 3 (57%) and Year 6 (80%) to detect incident MCI/probable dementia in a Cox regression model that assumes a protective hazard ratio of 0.70 (Figure 1).ConclusionAcross all non‐constant scenarios of potential treatment effect, six years of follow‐up increases precision and provides valuable information to better delineate long‐term cognitive trajectories. The ACHIEVE ‐ Brain Health Follow‐Up Study will be completed in 2025.

Abstract Up to 85% of adult cancer survivors and 99% of adult survivors of childhood cancer live with an accumulation of chronic conditions, frailty, and/or cognitive impairments resulting from cancer and its treatment. Thus, survivors often show an accelerated development of multiple geriatric syndromes and need therapeutic interventions. To advance progress in this area, the National Cancer Institute convened the second of 2 think tanks under the auspices of the Cancer and Accelerated Aging: Advancing Research for Healthy Survivors initiative. Experts assembled to share evidence of promising strategies to prevent, slow, or reverse the aging consequences of cancer and its treatment. The meeting identified research and resource needs, including geroscience-guided clinical trials; comprehensive assessments of functional, cognitive, and psychosocial vulnerabilities to assess and predict age-related outcomes; preclinical and clinical research to determine the optimal dosing for behavioral (eg, diet, exercise) and pharmacologic (eg, senolytic) therapies; health-care delivery research to evaluate the efficacy of integrated cancer care delivery models; optimization of intervention implementation, delivery, and uptake; and patient and provider education on cancer and treatment-related late and long-term adverse effects. Addressing these needs will expand knowledge of aging-related consequences of cancer and cancer treatment and inform strategies to promote healthy aging of cancer survivors.

Abstract Background Extensive work in basic and clinical science suggests that biological mechanisms of aging are causally related to the development of disease and disability in late life. Modulation of the biological mechanisms of aging can extend both life span and health span in animal models, but translation to humans has been slow. Methods Summary of workshop proceedings from the 2018–2019 Epidemiology of Aging Workshop hosted by the Intramural Research Program at the National Institute on Aging. Results Epidemiologic studies play a vital role to progress in this field, particularly in evaluating new risk factors and measures of biologic aging that may influence health span, as well as developing relevant outcome measures that are robust and relevant for older individuals. Conclusions Appropriately designed epidemiological studies are needed to identify targets for intervention and to inform study design and sample size estimates for future clinical trials designed to promote health span.