Arnold, Michelle L.

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.

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 Introduction: An inverse association between alcohol consumption and risk of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is well reported in the literature. Despite this, no investigators have explored the potential for effect modification of this association by genetic variations in enzymes that metabolize alcohol. Motivated by this, we conducted a pilot investigation of the role of genetic variation in the alcohol dehydrogenase genes (ADH) as an effect modifier of the association of alcohol and RCC risk. Methods: We analyzed data on 121 RCC cases and 121 controls. Cases were prospectively collected as part of our Renal Registry in the Department of Urology. Controls were recruited through the Family Medicine and frequency matched to cases on age, gender and state of residence. We collected detailed risk factor data (self-report questionnaire) as well as a DNA sample on cases and controls. We utilized Sequenome analysis to determine presence of published SNPs in the ADH gene cluster (ADH1-7). We employed logistic regression with interaction terms as well as stratified analyses to evaluate effect modification by genetic variants in the ADH gene cluster on the association of alcohol consumption and RCC risk. Results: Compared to non-drinkers, those that consumed alcohol above the median experienced a lowering in RCC risk (OR=0.80; 95% CI 0.5 to 1.43). We observed evidence of interactions with 6 SNPs in the ADH gene (p-values from 0.05-0.2). As an example, in stratified analysis, the inverse association strengthened in those without the minor allele present at rs1154454 in ADH7 (OR=0.56; 95% CI 0.3 to 1.0; p=0.08) while evidence of an increased in RCC risk was noted among those with the minor allele (OR=2.14; 95CI 0.8 – 5.7; p=0.1). Adjustment for age and gender did not alter our results. Conclusion: Our pilot data suggest that specific variants in the ADH gene cluster may modify the reported protective effect of alcohol consumption on RCC risk. Given the possible implications for improving our understanding of the biology of this association and informing prevention, future investigations that analyze a larger sample size and examine additional variants are warranted. Citation Format: Alexander Scott Parker, Nancy Diehl, Michelle L. Arnold, Shauna Rivera, Ashley Cannon, Kaitlynn Custer, Bradley Leibovich. Alcohol consumption, genetic variation in alcohol dehydrogenase genes, and risk of clear cell renal cell carcinoma. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual AACR International Conference on Frontiers in Cancer Prevention Research; 2013 Oct 27-30; National Harbor, MD. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Can Prev Res 2013;6(11 Suppl): Abstract nr A62.

ObjectiveTo determine long‐term surgical outcomes of salvage autologous fascial sling placement after a failed synthetic midurethral sling.MethodsWomen who had undergone autologous fascial sling placement without concomitant pelvic surgery for a failed synthetic midurethral sling utilizing mesh with a minimum follow up of 36 months were identified. Charts were reviewed, and patients were contacted by telephone. Success was determined by the Patient Global Impression of Improvement. Secondary measures included the Incontinence Severity Index questionnaire, patient recommendation of the autologous fascial sling and need for further incontinence surgery.ResultsA total of 35 patients met the criteria, and 21 were successfully contacted. Of those contacted, the median age at surgery was 67 years (range 53–81 years) and at the time of the survey was 75 years (range 63–84 years) with median follow up of 74 months (range 36–127 years). Preoperatively, 12 patients (57.1%) had urethral hypermobility and 13 patients (61.9%) had mixed urinary incontinence. Eight patients (38.1%) had concomitant sling excision with five of those combined with urethrolysis at the time of the salvage operation. Patient Global Impression of Improvement success was noted in 16 patients (76.2%). A total of 11 patients (52.4%) were dry or had slight incontinence by the Incontinence Severity Index. One patient required additional anti‐incontinence surgery (4.8%). A total of 18 patients (85.7%) recommended the autologous fascial sling. No statistical impact was noted with sling excision (P = 0.62), mixed urinary incontinence (P = 0.61), age at surgery (P = 0.23), age at follow up (P = 0.15), length of follow up (P = 0.71) or first surgery type (transobturator tape vs retropubic; P = 1.00).ConclusionsAutologous fascial sling provides reasonable long‐term success as a salvage operation for failed midurethral slings.