Citations

Moritz F Sinner, 2012 Finalist and Presenting Author

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.

Importance People who smoked cigarettes may experience respiratory symptoms without spirometric airflow obstruction. These individuals are typically excluded from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) trials and lack evidence-based therapies. Objective To define the natural history of persons with tobacco exposure and preserved spirometry (TEPS) and symptoms (symptomatic TEPS). Design, Setting, and Participants SPIROMICS II was an extension of SPIROMICS I, a multicenter study of persons aged 40 to 80 years who smoked cigarettes (>20 pack-years) with or without COPD and controls without tobacco exposure or airflow obstruction. Participants were enrolled in SPIROMICS I and II from November 10, 2010, through July 31, 2015, and followed up through July 31, 2021. Exposures Participants in SPIROMICS I underwent spirometry, 6-minute walk distance testing, assessment of respiratory symptoms, and computed tomography of the chest at yearly visits for 3 to 4 years. Participants in SPIROMICS II had 1 additional in-person visit 5 to 7 years after enrollment in SPIROMICS I. Respiratory symptoms were assessed with the COPD Assessment Test (range, 0 to 40; higher scores indicate more severe symptoms). Participants with symptomatic TEPS had normal spirometry (postbronchodilator ratio of forced expiratory volume in the first second [FEV 1 ] to forced vital capacity >0.70) and COPD Assessment Test scores of 10 or greater. Participants with asymptomatic TEPS had normal spirometry and COPD Assessment Test scores of less than 10. Patient-reported respiratory symptoms and exacerbations were assessed every 4 months via phone calls. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was assessment for accelerated decline in lung function (FEV 1 ) in participants with symptomatic TEPS vs asymptomatic TEPS. Secondary outcomes included development of COPD defined by spirometry, respiratory symptoms, rates of respiratory exacerbations, and progression of computed tomographic–defined airway wall thickening or emphysema. Results Of 1397 study participants, 226 had symptomatic TEPS (mean age, 60.1 [SD, 9.8] years; 134 were women [59%]) and 269 had asymptomatic TEPS (mean age, 63.1 [SD, 9.1] years; 134 were women [50%]). At a median follow-up of 5.76 years, the decline in FEV 1 was −31.3 mL/y for participants with symptomatic TEPS vs −38.8 mL/y for those with asymptomatic TEPS (between-group difference, −7.5 mL/y [95% CI, −16.6 to 1.6 mL/y]). The cumulative incidence of COPD was 33.0% among participants with symptomatic TEPS vs 31.6% among those with asymptomatic TEPS (hazard ratio, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.76 to 1.46]). Participants with symptomatic TEPS had significantly more respiratory exacerbations than those with asymptomatic TEPS (0.23 vs 0.08 exacerbations per person-year, respectively; rate ratio, 2.38 [95% CI, 1.71 to 3.31], P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance Participants with symptomatic TEPS did not have accelerated rates of decline in FEV 1 or increased incidence of COPD vs those with asymptomatic TEPS, but participants with symptomatic TEPS did experience significantly more respiratory exacerbations over a median follow-up of 5.8 years.

AbstractBackgroundPrior evidence has suggested associations between hearing loss and smaller brain volumes particularly in the temporal lobe where the primary auditory cortex is located, probably due to changes in cortical organization associated with reduced auditory stimulation. Evidence regarding associations of central auditory processing with brain volumes is relatively limited. The study aims to investigate cross‐sectional associations of central auditory processing with brain volumes in older adults.MethodWe studied 587 cognitively normal (Mini‐Mental State Exam ≥23 if high school degree or less and ≥25 if above high school degree) older adults (mean age: 77±4 years, 56% female, 17% black), including 426 with hearing loss from the Aging and Cognitive Health Evaluation in Elders (ACHIEVE) baseline (2018‐19), which is an ancillary randomized controlled trial of the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study and 161 with normal hearing, comparable age and cognitive status from the ARIC Visit 6/7 (2016‐17/2018‐19). Brain volumes were measured by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans and were transformed to z‐scores. Central auditory processing was measured by the Quick Speech‐in‐Noise (QuickSIN) test. Total scores range from 0 to 30 with lower scores indicating worse speech‐in‐noise performance. Multivariable‐adjusted linear regression was used to estimate cross‐sectional differences in standardized brain volumes associated with differences in QuickSIN score. Models adjusted for age, sex, race, education, cohort, body mass index, smoking, hypertension, diabetes, stroke, intracranial volume, and pure‐tone average.ResultEvery 5‐point decrease in QuickSIN score (worse performance) was associated with smaller volumes of the temporal lobe (‐0.07SD, 95% CI: ‐0.13, ‐0.01). QuickSIN score was also associated with subregions of the temporal lobe related to auditory processing, memory and emotion, including amygdala (‐0.13SD, 95% CI: ‐0.21, ‐0.04), middle (‐0.08SD, 95% CI: ‐0.15, ‐0.00) and superior temporal gyri (‐0.08SD, 95% CI: ‐0.15, ‐0.01).ConclusionPoorer central auditory processing was associated with smaller temporal lobe volumes, including but not limited to subregions important for auditory processing. The ongoing collection of ACHIEVE data with longitudinal MRI data will facilitate understanding of association between hearing loss and brain atrophy as well as the potential promising effects of hearing treatment in mitigating brain aging.