Goman, Adele M.

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.

AbstractBackgroundAlthough both age‐related and highly prevalent, little is known regarding the prevalence of hearing loss among persons with dementia (PwD). Current understanding is based on convenience samples primarily from specialized memory clinics. The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Neurocognitive Study (ARIC‐NCS) is a large, prospective study of a population‐based cohort from 4 U.S. community sites with audiometric and neurocognitive testing and bi‐racial representation. We examined the prevalence of hearing loss and hearing aid use among older adults with cognitive impairment and whether cognitive status influences hearing aid use.MethodWe analyzed audiometric and hearing care data from ARIC‐NCS Visit 6 (2016‐2018). Participants underwent a full neurocognitive battery and audiometric evaluation at Visit 6. Participants with complete audiometric data and an adjudicated diagnosis of cognitively normal, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), or dementia were included in the analytical cohort (N=3,385). Differences in participant characteristics by cognitive status were descriptively compared using Chi‐square tests or one‐way ANOVAs. We performed a series of logistic regression models to estimate the odds of hearing aid non‐use by cognitive status.ResultPrevalence of hearing loss was greater with increasing cognitive impairment (cognitively normal:64.7%; MCI:71.3%; dementia:83.3%). Prevalence of hearing aid use among those with hearing loss and cognitive impairment varied by race (African Americans 7.2%; whites 32.8%). In a multivariable‐adjusted model, cognitive impairment was independently associated with higher odds of non‐use of hearing aids (MCI odds ratio (OR):1.4 (95%CI:1.0‐1.8); dementia OR:1.8 (95%CI:1.2‐2.9) versus cognitively normal). The strongest risk factor for non‐use of hearing aids was race, where African Americans have almost a 5 times higher odds of not using hearing aids compared to whites (95% CI:2.9‐7.4).ConclusionHearing loss is highly prevalent but vastly untreated among older adults with cognitive impairment, particularly African Americans, and cognitive impairment is independently associated with hearing aid use. These estimates are some of the first population‐based estimates of audiometric hearing loss among diverse older adults with adjudicated diagnoses of MCI or dementia. With increased calls to address ethnic/racial disparities, we must include hearing loss, as one of the most common co‐morbidities, in order to optimize health and well‐being among all PwD.