Reed, Nicholas S.

Objective We investigated potential racial disparities in the effects of audiometric hearing loss and its treatment on dementia and mortality among 3,602 older adults aged 68–89 years, 22% of whom were self-identified Black race. Methods Adjudicated all-cause dementia was determined using neurocognitive test data, proxy reports, and surveillance of hospital records and death certificates. Audiometric hearing loss, defined as the better-ear averaged pure-tone threshold (0.5–4 kHz), was categorized using clinical cutpoints. Multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models included hearing loss–race interaction terms. Results Dementia risk associated with moderate-to-severe hearing loss did not differ by race [Black participants: hazard ratio (HR): 1.66; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.05, 2.61; White participants: HR: 1.71; 95% CI: 1.16, 2.51; P -interaction = 0.92]. However, moderate-to-severe hearing loss was associated with a 2.3-fold increase in mortality among Black participants only (95% CI: 1.17, 4.60). Conclusions Our findings emphasize the importance of including minoritized populations in hearing treatment research to build an evidence base for policy development and clinical decision-making. Hearing loss affects the health of both Black and White Americans. Racial disparities in hearing healthcare should be addressed to advance health equity for all older adults.

Abstract Background The Aging and Cognitive Health Evaluation in Elders (ACHIEVE) randomized trial ( n = 977;ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT03243422) demonstrated that hearing intervention slowed 3‐year cognitive decline by 48% among a subgroup of participants. To further investigate differences by treatment with respect to cognitive benefit, we tested the hypothesis that hearing intervention is associated with improved neurodegeneration blood biomarkers 3‐years post‐randomization and assessed whether combining biomarkers and cognitive results improved power in the trial design. Method The ACHIEVE study is a multicenter, parallel‐arm, randomized trial (hearing intervention vs health education control) on 3‐year cognitive decline among adults 70–84years with untreated hearing loss and without substantial cognitive impairment. Participants were recruited from two populations: (1) a long‐standing cardiovascular health observational study (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities [ARIC]), and (2) de novo community volunteers. Plasma was collected in year 3 in a subsample ( n = 540) while ARIC participants ( n = 164) also had baseline plasma. Glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) and neurofilament light (NfL) neurodegenerative biomarkers were derived using the Alamar CNS protein panel. Regression models estimated the association of treatment with 3‐year biomarkers and global cognitive differences in the combined sample and by recruitment source and annualized change from baseline in the ARIC sample. We included a simple composite score of the standardized outcomes (Table 2). Result Among the subsample, baseline characteristics were balanced by treatment. There were no significant differences on 3‐year neurodegeneration biomarker levels by treatment in the combined (Table 1) or de novo groups (Table 2). Among ARIC participants, intervention resulted in lower 3‐year GFAP (mean:‐0.415;95%CI:‐0.712,‐0.118) and NfL (mean:‐0.349;95%CI:‐0.652,‐0.046) (Table 2). Annualized change from baseline analyses among ARIC participants (Table 3) revealed intervention was associated with a slower rate of cognitive decline (difference‐in‐means:0.059;95%CI:0.018,0.100) and a slower rate of increase in GFAP (difference‐in‐means: ‐0.060;95%CI:‐0.112,‐0.009). Differences in estimates suggest combined score, relative to cognition alone, may increase power in clinical trials that show a positive effect (ARIC subgroup: p = 0.02vs. 0.08[Table 2] and p = 0.0009vs.0.048[Table 3]). Conclusion Hearing intervention was associated with positive 3‐year effects on neurodegeneration blood biomarkers in ARIC participants which parallels cognitive decline results. Results provides objective evidence of brain changes following hearing intervention and potential signal of a more powerful combined outcome approach for future brain health clinical trials.

Hearing loss is a highly prevalent disease state affecting almost 1 in 5 individuals globally. Growing research shows that untreated or undertreated hearing loss carries significant long-term sequelae, including increased risk of social isolation, depression, and cognitive decline, among other ramifications. Limited awareness and common misperceptions among the general US adult population and primary care providers contribute to low rates of referral to hearing specialty clinics and underutilization of hearing aids, cochlear implants, and other rehabilitative devices. Comprised of diverse membership, the Hearing Health Collaborative (HHC) was formed in May 2021 to identify and overcome challenges impacting good health care practices and public policy on hearing care in connection with healthy aging. This editorial documents a recent outcome of the HHC derived from a structured A3 process. Specifically, initiative 2, a proposal to develop a simple, clinically anchored staging system primarily for use by frontline providers and patients, is presented. Unlike other common disorders that harbor long-term health sequelae, a corresponding pragmatic clinical staging system—leveraging precedent disease staging convention, based on clinically meaningful outcomes and prognosis for acquired hearing loss—does not exist. The development of this staging system will potentially allow for improved communication across providers and patients, facilitate referral pathways, and ultimately enable patient access to timely and appropriate care.

Objective Present the rationale for the development of a new, patient-facing vital sign for adult hearing. Study Design Structured A3 process. Setting Fourteen virtual meetings and two in-person meetings held between May 2021 and June 2022. Main Outcome Measure(s) Identification and refinement of a countermeasure to develop and imbed a hearing health vital sign for adult hearing. Results Through a rigorous, structured A3 process, the Hearing Health Collaborative identified and refined the rationale for and the qualities associated with a public-facing vital sign for adult hearing loss. Specifically, such a vital sign must embody five qualities: simple, accessible, stable, inclusive, and meaningful. These qualities together would ensure that a hearing health vital sign would be useful not only as a screening tool but also as an instrument to guide next steps in workup and potentially treatment. Conclusions Successful identification and implementation of a hearing metric or “vital sign” for the presence of adult hearing loss, using precedent convention of other medical diseases, may help reframe public perceptions surrounding hearing loss, improve awareness and literacy regarding the presence of the disease, and prompt action to seek diagnostic assessment.

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.

Purpose: Population-based evidence in the interrelationships among hearing, brain structure, and cognition is limited. This study aims to investigate the cross-sectional associations of peripheral hearing, brain imaging measures, and cognitive function with speech-in-noise performance among older adults. Method: We studied 602 participants in the Aging and Cognitive Health Evaluation in Elders (ACHIEVE) brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) ancillary study, including 427 ACHIEVE baseline (2018–2020) participants with hearing loss and 175 Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Neurocognitive Study Visit 6/7 (2016–2017/2018–2019) participants with normal hearing. Speech-in-noise performance, as outcome of interest, was assessed by the Quick Speech-in-Noise (QuickSIN) test (range: 0–30; higher = better). Predictors of interest included (a) peripheral hearing assessed by pure-tone audiometry; (b) brain imaging measures: structural MRI measures, white matter hyperintensities, and diffusion tensor imaging measures; and (c) cognitive performance assessed by a battery of 10 cognitive tests. All predictors were standardized to z scores. We estimated the differences in QuickSIN associated with every standard deviation ( SD ) worse in each predictor (peripheral hearing, brain imaging, and cognition) using multivariable-adjusted linear regression, adjusting for demographic variables, lifestyle, and disease factors (Model 1), and, additionally, for other predictors to assess independent associations (Model 2). Results: Participants were aged 70–84 years, 56% female, and 17% Black. Every SD worse in better-ear 4-frequency pure-tone average was associated with worse QuickSIN (−4.89, 95% confidence interval, CI [−5.57, −4.21]) when participants had peripheral hearing loss, independent of other predictors. Smaller temporal lobe volume was associated with worse QuickSIN, but the association was not independent of other predictors (−0.30, 95% CI [−0.86, 0.26]). Every SD worse in global cognitive performance was independently associated with worse QuickSIN (−0.90, 95% CI [−1.30, −0.50]). Conclusions: Peripheral hearing and cognitive performance are independently associated with speech-in-noise performance among dementia-free older adults. The ongoing ACHIEVE trial will elucidate the effect of a hearing intervention that includes amplification and auditory rehabilitation on speech-in-noise understanding in older adults. Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.25733679

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.

Objective Hearing loss is increasingly recognized as a chronic disease state with important health sequelae. Although considered a central component of routine audiometric testing, the degree to which various patient factors influence speech discrimination is poorly characterized to date. The primary objective of the current work was to describe associations of cognitive performance, sociodemographic factors, and pure-tone audiometry with speech discrimination in older adults. Study Design Prospective study. Setting Olmsted County, Minnesota. Patients There were 1,061 study participants 50 years or older at enrollment in the population-based Mayo Clinic Study of Aging between November 2004 and December 2019 who underwent formal audiometric and cognitive testing included in the current investigation. Main Outcome Measures The primary outcome measure was word recognition scores (WRSs; measured as <100% vs 100% as well as continuous), with pure-tone averages (PTAs; 0.5, 1, 2, and 3 kHz), age, sex, years of education, state area deprivation index (ADI) quintiles, and global cognition z scores as explanatory features. Results The mean (SD) age among the 1,061 participants was 76 (9) years with 528 (50%) males. Participant age [OR (95% CI) for a 10-year increase of 1.8 (1.4–2.3), p < 0.001], male sex [OR = 2.6 (1.9–3.7), p < 0.001], and PTA [OR for a 10-dB hearing loss increase of 2.4 (2.1–2.8), p < 0.001] were all significantly associated with <100% WRSs, with the greatest explanatory ability attributable to the PTA. Years of education (p = 0.9), state ADI quintile (p = 0.6), and global cognitive performance (p = 0.2) were not associated with WRS. The multivariable model demonstrated strong predictive ability for less than perfect WRSs, with a c index of 0.854. Similar results were seen for WRSs analyzed as continuous, with the multivariable model resulting in an R 2 value of 0.433. Conclusions Although PTA exhibited the greatest influence on speech discrimination, advancing age and male sex both independently increased the likelihood of having worse speech discrimination among older adults, even after accounting for years of education, neighborhood-level socioeconomic disadvantage, and cognitive function. These findings help identify patient factors that can be instrumental when designing screening programs for adult-onset hearing loss.

Abstract Background Hearing loss is a risk factor for dementia; whether the association is causal or due to a shared pathology is unknown. We estimated the association of brain β-amyloid with hearing, hypothesizing no association. As a positive control, we quantified the association of hearing loss with neurocognitive test performance. Methods Cross-sectional analysis of Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities-Positron Emission Tomography study data. Amyloid was measured using global cortical and temporal lobe standardized uptake value ratios (SUVRs) calculated from florbetapir-positron emission tomography scans. Composite global and domain-specific cognitive scores were created from 10 neurocognitive tests. Hearing was measured using an average of better-ear air conduction thresholds (0.5–4 kHz). Multivariable-adjusted linear regression estimated mean differences in hearing by amyloid and mean differences in cognitive scores by hearing, stratified by race. Results In 252 dementia-free adults (72–92 years, 37% Black race, and 61% female participants), cortical or temporal lobe SUVR was not associated with hearing (models adjusted for age, sex, education, and APOE ε4). Each 10 dB HL increase in hearing loss was associated with a 0.134 standard deviation lower mean global cognitive factor score (95% CI: −0.248, −0.019), after adjustment for demographic and cardiovascular factors. Observed hearing-cognition associations were stronger in Black versus White participants. Conclusions Amyloid is not associated with hearing, suggesting that pathways linking hearing and cognition are independent of this pathognomonic Alzheimer’s-related brain change. This is the first study to show that the impact of hearing loss on cognition may be stronger in Black versus White adults.