Sanchez, Victoria 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.

Ototoxicity is among the adverse events related to cancer treatment that can have far-reaching consequences and negative impacts on quality-of-life for cancer patients and survivors of all ages. Ototoxicity management (OtoM) comprises the prevention, diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment, including rehabilitation and therapeutic intervention, of individuals who experience hearing loss, tinnitus, or balance/vestibular difficulties following exposures to ototoxic agents, including platinum chemotherapy (cisplatin, carboplatin) and cranial radiation. Despite the well-established physical, socioeconomic, and psychological consequences of hearing and balance dysfunction, there are no widely adopted standards for clinical management of cancer treatment-related ototoxicity. Consensus recommendations and a roadmap are needed to guide development of effective and feasible OtoM programs, direct research efforts, address the needs of caregivers and patients at all stages of cancer care and survivorship. Here we review current evidence and propose near-term to longer-term goals to advance OtoM in five strategic areas: (1) beneficiary awareness, empowerment, and engagement, (2) workforce enhancement, (3) program development, (4) policy, funding, and sustainability, and (5) research and evaluation. The goal is to identify needs and establish a roadmap to guide worldwide adoption of standardized OtoM for cancer treatment and improved outcomes for patients and survivors.

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.

Purpose: Ototoxic medications and chemical agents in the workplace can put individuals' hearing and vestibular health at risk for permanent injury. Proactive ototoxicity management (OtoM) strategies aim to minimize exposure, avoid onset of symptoms, provide ongoing monitoring, and manage auditory and vestibular changes as the clinical needs of the patient evolve. During a 2021 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Special Interest Groups Open House, members of the International Ototoxicity Management Group discussed how best to integrate OtoM into routine clinical practice, what tools to use, and what special considerations need to be understood to best support patients and their families. Here, we have summarized their viewpoints to encourage widespread adoption of improved OtoM services for at-risk individuals. Conclusions: The field of audiology needs to move to a place where we better understand the full extent of ototoxicity and can agree on expanding minimum guidelines that can be implemented more universally to mitigate, detect, and manage the damage from ototoxic exposures. Only recently has our field seen a therapeutic drug that can protect against ototoxicity; however, the population served is restricted only to children receiving treatment for nonmetastatic carcinoma. This is hopefully just the beginning of future therapeutic interventions to come, but, in the meantime, ototoxicity resulting from other medications in different patient populations and chemical agents persists.