Search

INTRODUCTION: The contribution of neuropsychological assessments to risk assessment for incident dementia is underappreciated. METHODS: We analyzed neuropsychological testing results in dementia‐free participants in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study. We examined associations of index domain–specific neuropsychological test performance with incident dementia using cumulative incidence curves and Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Among 5296 initially dementia‐free participants (mean [standard deviation] age of 75.8 [5.1] years; 60.1% women, 22.2% Black) over a median follow‐up of 7.9 years, the covariate‐adjusted hazard ratio varied substantially depending on the pattern of domain‐specific performance and age, in an orderly manner from single domain language abnormalities (lowest risk) to single domain executive or memory abnormalities, to multidomain abnormalities including memory (highest risk). DISCUSSION: By identifying normatively defined cognitive abnormalities by domains based on neuropsychological test performance, there is a conceptually orderly and age‐sensitive spectrum of risk for incident dementia that provides valuable information about the likelihood of progression. Highlights: Domain‐specific cognitive profiles carry enhanced prognostic value compared to mild cognitive impairment.Single‐domain non‐amnestic cognitive abnormalities have the most favorable prognosis.Multidomain amnestic abnormalities have the greatest risk for incident dementia.Patterns of domain‐specific risks are similar by sex and race. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Hearing loss is associated with restricted physical activity (PA) and impaired physical functioning, yet the relationship between severity of hearing impairment (HI) and novel PA measures in older adults with untreated HI is not well understood. Methods Analyses included 845 participants aged ≥70 years (mean = 76.6 years) with a better-hearing ear pure-tone average (PTA) ≥30 and <70 dB in the Aging and Cognitive Health Evaluation in Elders (ACHIEVE) study who wore an ActiGraph accelerometer for 7 days. Physical functioning measures included grip strength and the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB). Linear regression models estimated the association by HI level (moderate or greater [PTA ≥ 40 dB] vs mild [PTA < 40 dB]) and continuous hearing with total daily activity counts, active minutes/day, activity fragmentation, grip strength, and gait speed. Logistic regression models estimated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of poor performance on the SPPB (≤6) and its subtests (≤2). Mixed-effects models estimated differences by HI level in activity by time of day. Results Participants with moderate or greater HI had poorer physical functioning, particularly balance (OR = 2.17, 95% CI = 1.29–3.67), versus those with mild impairment. There was no association of HI level with activity quantities or fragmentation. For diurnal patterns of activity, participants with moderate or greater HI had fewer activity counts in the afternoon (12:00 pm –05:59 pm). Conclusions Older adults with worse hearing had shifted diurnal patterns and poorer balance performance. Exercise programs should be tailored to older adults with different levels of HI to maintain PA and physical functioning, particularly balance control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hearing loss is associated with cognitive/physical health; less is known about mental health. We investigated associations between hearing loss severity, depression, and health-related quality of life among older adults with unaided hearing loss. Data (N = 948) were from the Aging and Cognitive Health Evaluation in Elders Study. Hearing was measured by pure-tone average (PTA), Quick Speech-in-Noise (QuickSIN) test, and the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (HHIE-S). Outcomes were validated measures of depression and health-related quality of life. Associations were assessed by negative binomial regression. More severe hearing loss was associated with worse physical health–related quality of life (ratio:.98, 95% CI:.96, 1.00). Better QuickSIN was associated with higher mental health–related quality of life (1.01 [1.00, 1.02]). Worse HHIE-S was associated with depression (1.24 [1.16, 1.33]) and worse mental (.97 [.96,.98]) and physical (.95 [.93,.96]) health–related quality of life. Further work will test effects of hearing intervention on mental health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

INTRODUCTION: Many neurocognitive evaluations involve auditory stimuli, yet there are no standard testing guidelines for individuals with hearing loss. The ensuring speech understanding (ESU) test was developed to confirm speech understanding and determine whether hearing accommodations are necessary for neurocognitive testing. METHODS: Hearing was assessed using audiometry. The probability of ESU test failure by hearing status was estimated in 2679 participants (mean age: 81.4 ± 4.6 years) using multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Only 2.2% (N = 58) of participants failed the ESU test. The probability of failure increased with hearing loss severity; similar results were observed for those with and without mild cognitive impairment or dementia. DISCUSSION: The ESU test is appropriate for individuals who have variable degrees of hearing loss and cognitive function. This test can be used prior to neurocognitive testing to help reduce the risk of hearing loss and compromised auditory access to speech stimuli causing poorer performance on neurocognitive evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The Aging and Cognitive Health Evaluation in Elders (ACHIEVE) study is a randomized clinical trial designed to determine the effects of a bestpractice hearing intervention versus a successful aging health education control intervention on cognitive decline among community-dwelling older adults with untreated mild-to-moderate hearing loss. We describe the baseline audiologic characteristics of the ACHIEVE participants. Method: Participants aged 70-84 years (N = 977; Mage = 76.8) were enrolled at four U.S. sites through two recruitment routes: (a) an ongoing longitudinal study and (b) de novo through the community. Participants underwent diagnostic evaluation including otoscopy, tympanometry, pure-tone and speech audiometry, speech-in-noise testing, and provided self-reported hearing abilities. Baseline characteristics are reported as frequencies (percentages) for categorical variables or medians (interquartiles, Q1-Q3) for continuous variables. Between-groups comparisons were conducted using chi-square tests for categorical variables or Kruskal--Wallis test for continuous variables. Spearman correlations assessed relationships between measured hearing function and self-reported hearing handicap. Results: The median four-frequency pure-tone average of the better ear was 39 dB HL, and the median speech-in-noise performance was a 6-dB SNR loss, indicating mild speech-in-noise difficulty. No clinically meaningful differences were found across sites. Significant differences in subjective measures were found for recruitment route. Expected correlations between hearing measurements and self-reported handicap were found. Conclusions: The extensive baseline audiologic characteristics reported here will inform future analyses examining associations between hearing loss and cognitive decline. The final ACHIEVE data set will be publicly available for use among the scientific community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Hearing loss is linked to loneliness and social isolation, but evidence is typically based on self-reported hearing. This study quantifies the associations of objective and subjective hearing loss with loneliness and social network characteristics among older adults with untreated hearing loss. Methods This study uses baseline data (N  = 933) from the Aging and Cognitive Health Evaluation in Elders (ACHIEVE) study. Hearing loss was quantified by the better ear, speech-frequency pure tone average (PTA), Quick Speech-in-Noise test, and hearing-related quality of life. Outcomes were validated measures of loneliness and social network characteristics. Associations were assessed by Poisson, negative binomial, and linear regression adjusted for demographic, health, and study design characteristics. Results Participants were mean of 76.8 (4.0) years, 54.0% female, and 87.6% White. Prevalence of loneliness was 38%. Worse PTA was associated with a 19% greater prevalence of moderate or greater loneliness (prevalence ration [PR]: 1.19.95% CI: 1.06, 1.33). Better speech-in-noise recognition was associated with greater social network characteristics (eg, larger social network size [IRR: 1.04, 95% CI: 1.00, 1.07]). Worse hearing-related quality of life was associated with a 29% greater prevalence of moderate or greater loneliness (PR: 1.29, 95% CI: 1.19, 1.39) and worse social network characteristics (eg, more constricted social network size [IRR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.91, 1.00]). Conclusions Results suggest the importance of multiple dimensions of hearing to loneliness and social connectedness. Hearing-related quality of life may be a potentially useful, easily administered clinical tool for identifying older adults with hearing loss associated with greater loneliness and social isolation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

INTRODUCTION: Hearing loss is highly prevalent among older adults and independently associated with cognitive decline. The Aging and Cognitive Health Evaluation in Elders (ACHIEVE) study is a multicenter randomized control trial (partially nested within the infrastructure of an observational cohort study, the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities [ARIC] study) to determine the efficacy of best‐practice hearing treatment to reduce cognitive decline over 3 years. The goal of this paper is to describe the recruitment process and baseline results. METHODS: Multiple strategies were used to recruit community‐dwelling 70–84‐year‐old participants with adult‐onset hearing loss who were free of substantial cognitive impairment from the parent ARIC study and de novo from the surrounding communities into the trial. Participants completed telephone screening, an in‐person hearing, vision, and cognitive screening, and a comprehensive hearing assessment to determine eligibility. RESULTS: Over a 24‐month period, 3004 telephone screenings resulted in 2344 in‐person hearing, vision, and cognition screenings and 1294 comprehensive hearing screenings. Among 1102 eligible, 977 were randomized into the trial (median age = 76.4 years; 53.5% female; 87.8% White; 53.3% held a Bachelor's degree or higher). Participants recruited through the ARIC study were recruited much earlier and were less likely to report hearing loss interfered with their quality of life relative to participants recruited de novo from the community. Minor differences in baseline hearing or health characteristics were found by recruitment route (i.e., ARIC study or de novo) and by study site. DISCUSSION: The ACHIEVE study successfully completed enrollment over 2 years that met originally projected rates of recruitment. Substantial operational and scientific efficiencies during study startup were achieved through embedding this trial within the infrastructure of a longstanding and well‐established observational study. Highlights: The ACHIEVE study tests the effect of hearing intervention on cognitive decline.The study is partially nested within an existing cohort study.Over 2 years, 977 participants recruited and enrolled.Eligibility assessed by telephone and in‐person for hearing, vision, and cognitive screening.The ACHIEVE study findings will have significant public health implications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Hearing 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. Method: The 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. Result: 977 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. Conclusion: Hearing intervention may have a significant effect on reducing cognitive change over 3 years in populations of older adults at increased risk for cognitive decline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We examined the relationship of midlife cardiovascular health (CVH) with late-life robustness among men and women and the impact of survivorship bias on sex differences in robustness.Methods: Prospective analysis of 15 744 participants aged 45-64 (visit 1 median age: 54 years, 55% female, 27% Black) in 1987-1989 from the population-based Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study. CVH was operationalized according to the Life's Simple 7 (LS7) metric of health behaviors (smoking, weight, physical activity, diet, cholesterol, blood pressure, and glucose); each behavior was scored as ideal (2 points), intermediate (1 point), or poor (0 points) and summed. Late-life robust/prefrail/frailty was defined at visit 5 (2011-2013). Multinomial regression estimated relative prevalence ratios (RPRs) of late-life robustness/prefrailty/frailty/death across overall midlife LS7 score and components, for the full visit 1 sample. Separate analyses considered visit 5 survivors-only.Results: For each 1-unit greater midlife LS7 score, participants had a 37% higher relative prevalence of being robust versus frail (overall RPR = 1.37 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 1.30-1.44]; women = 1.45 [1.36-1.54]; men = 1.24 [1.13-1.36]). Among the full visit 1 sample, women had a similar 1-level higher robustness category prevalence (RPR = 1.35 [95% CI: 1.32-1.39]) than men (RPR = 1.31 [95% CI: 1.27-1.35]) for every 1-unit higher midlife LS7 score. Among survivors, men were more likely to be robust than women at lower LS7 levels; differences were attenuated and not statistically different at higher midlife LS7 levels.Conclusions: Midlife CVH is positively associated with robustness in late life among men and women. Accounting for mortality in part explains documented sex differences in robustness across all levels of LS7. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Hearing 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. Methods: Participants 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. Results: When 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). Conclusion: Across 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 FROM AUTHOR]

Background Methods Results Conclusions The Aging and Cognitive Health Evaluation in Elders (ACHIEVE) Study was designed to determine the effects of a best‐practice hearing intervention on cognitive decline among community‐dwelling older adults. Here, we conducted a secondary analysis of the ACHIEVE Study to investigate the effect of hearing intervention on self‐reported communicative function.The ACHIEVE Study is a parallel‐group, unmasked, randomized controlled trial of adults aged 70–84 years with untreated mild‐to‐moderate hearing loss and without substantial cognitive impairment. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to a hearing intervention (audiological counseling and provision of hearing aids) or a control intervention of health education (individual sessions with a health educator covering topics on chronic disease prevention) and followed semiannually for 3 years. Self‐reported communicative function was measured with the Hearing Handicap Inventory—Elderly Screening version (HHIE‐S, range 0–40, higher scores indicate greater impairment). Effect of hearing intervention versus control on HHIE‐S was analyzed through an intention‐to‐treat model controlling for known covariates.HHIE‐S improved after 6‐months with hearing intervention compared to control, and continued to be better through 3‐year follow‐up. We estimated a difference of −8.9 (95% CI: −10.4, −7.5) points between intervention and control groups in change in HHIE‐S score from baseline to 6 months, −9.3 (95% CI: −10.8, −7.9) to Year 1, −8.4 (95% CI: −9.8, −6.9) to Year 2, and − 9.5 (95% CI: −11.0, −8.0) to Year 3. Other prespecified sensitivity analyses that varied analytical parameters did not change the observed results.Hearing intervention improved self‐reported communicative function compared to a control intervention within 6 months and with effects sustained through 3 years. These findings suggest that clinical recommendations for older adults with hearing loss should encourage hearing intervention that could benefit communicative function and potentially have positive downstream effects on other aspects of health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Fatigue is a common complaint among older adults with hearing loss. The impact of addressing hearing loss on fatigue symptoms has not been studied in a randomized controlled trial. In a secondary analysis of the Aging and Cognitive Health Evaluation in Elders (ACHIEVE) study, we investigated the effect of hearing intervention versus health education control on 3-year change in fatigue in community-dwelling older adults with hearing loss., Methods: Participants aged 70-84 years old with untreated hearing loss recruited across 4 study sites in the United States (Forsyth County, North Carolina; Jackson, Mississippi; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Washington County, Maryland) were randomized (1:1) to hearing intervention or health education control and followed for 3 years. Three-year change in fatigue symptoms was measured by 2 instruments (RAND-36 and PROMIS). We estimated the intervention effect as the difference in the 3-year change in fatigue between intervention and control groups using a linear mixed-effects model under the intention-to-treat principle., Results: Participants (n = 977) had a mean age (SD) of 76.8 (4.0) years, were 53.5% female and 87.8% White. Over 3 years, a beneficial effect of the hearing intervention versus health education control on fatigue was observed using the RAND-fatigue score (β = -0.12 [95% CI: -0.22, -0.02]). Estimates also suggested beneficial effect of hearing intervention on fatigue when measured by the PROMIS-fatigue score (β = -0.32 [95% CI: -1.15, 0.51])., Conclusions: Our findings suggest that hearing intervention may reduce fatigue over 3 years among older adults with hearing loss., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Gerontological Society of America. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Introduction: The contribution of neuropsychological assessments to risk assessment for incident dementia is underappreciated., Methods: We analyzed neuropsychological testing results in dementia-free participants in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study. We examined associations of index domain-specific neuropsychological test performance with incident dementia using cumulative incidence curves and Cox proportional hazards models., Results: Among 5296 initially dementia-free participants (mean [standard deviation] age of 75.8 [5.1] years; 60.1% women, 22.2% Black) over a median follow-up of 7.9 years, the covariate-adjusted hazard ratio varied substantially depending on the pattern of domain-specific performance and age, in an orderly manner from single domain language abnormalities (lowest risk) to single domain executive or memory abnormalities, to multidomain abnormalities including memory (highest risk)., Discussion: By identifying normatively defined cognitive abnormalities by domains based on neuropsychological test performance, there is a conceptually orderly and age-sensitive spectrum of risk for incident dementia that provides valuable information about the likelihood of progression., Highlights: Domain-specific cognitive profiles carry enhanced prognostic value compared to mild cognitive impairment. Single-domain non-amnestic cognitive abnormalities have the most favorable prognosis. Multidomain amnestic abnormalities have the greatest risk for incident dementia. Patterns of domain-specific risks are similar by sex and race., (© 2024 The Author(s). Alzheimer's & Dementia published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Alzheimer's Association.)

Introduction: Many neurocognitive evaluations involve auditory stimuli, yet there are no standard testing guidelines for individuals with hearing loss. The ensuring speech understanding (ESU) test was developed to confirm speech understanding and determine whether hearing accommodations are necessary for neurocognitive testing., Methods: Hearing was assessed using audiometry. The probability of ESU test failure by hearing status was estimated in 2679 participants (mean age: 81.4 ± 4.6 years) using multivariate logistic regression., Results: Only 2.2% (N = 58) of participants failed the ESU test. The probability of failure increased with hearing loss severity; similar results were observed for those with and without mild cognitive impairment or dementia., Discussion: The ESU test is appropriate for individuals who have variable degrees of hearing loss and cognitive function. This test can be used prior to neurocognitive testing to help reduce the risk of hearing loss and compromised auditory access to speech stimuli causing poorer performance on neurocognitive evaluation., (© 2023 The Authors. Alzheimer's & Dementia published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Alzheimer's Association.)

Introduction: Hearing loss is highly prevalent among older adults and independently associated with cognitive decline. The Aging and Cognitive Health Evaluation in Elders (ACHIEVE) study is a multicenter randomized control trial (partially nested within the infrastructure of an observational cohort study, the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities [ARIC] study) to determine the efficacy of best-practice hearing treatment to reduce cognitive decline over 3 years. The goal of this paper is to describe the recruitment process and baseline results., Methods: Multiple strategies were used to recruit community-dwelling 70-84-year-old participants with adult-onset hearing loss who were free of substantial cognitive impairment from the parent ARIC study and de novo from the surrounding communities into the trial. Participants completed telephone screening, an in-person hearing, vision, and cognitive screening, and a comprehensive hearing assessment to determine eligibility., Results: Over a 24-month period, 3004 telephone screenings resulted in 2344 in-person hearing, vision, and cognition screenings and 1294 comprehensive hearing screenings. Among 1102 eligible, 977 were randomized into the trial (median age = 76.4 years; 53.5% female; 87.8% White; 53.3% held a Bachelor's degree or higher). Participants recruited through the ARIC study were recruited much earlier and were less likely to report hearing loss interfered with their quality of life relative to participants recruited de novo from the community. Minor differences in baseline hearing or health characteristics were found by recruitment route (i.e., ARIC study or de novo) and by study site., Discussion: The ACHIEVE study successfully completed enrollment over 2 years that met originally projected rates of recruitment. Substantial operational and scientific efficiencies during study startup were achieved through embedding this trial within the infrastructure of a longstanding and well-established observational study., Highlights: The ACHIEVE study tests the effect of hearing intervention on cognitive decline.The study is partially nested within an existing cohort study.Over 2 years, 977 participants recruited and enrolled.Eligibility assessed by telephone and in-person for hearing, vision, and cognitive screening.The ACHIEVE study findings will have significant public health implications., Competing Interests: Dr. Reed reported serving on the scientific advisory boards of Neosensory. Dr. Lin reported being a consultant to Frequency Therapeutics and Apple and being the director of a research center funded in part by a philanthropic gift from Cochlear Ltd to the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Dr. Lin is also a board member of the nonprofit Access HEARS. Dr. Sanchez reported industry funding related to consulting or research support from Otonomy Inc., Autifony Therapeutics Ltd., Boehringer Ingelheim, Frequency Therapeutics Ltd., Pipeline Therapeutics, Aerin Medical, Oticon Medical, Helen of Troy Ltd., Sonova Holding AG, and Phonak USA. Theresa Gmelin reports funding by The National Institute on Aging, Epidemiology of Aging training grant at the University of Pittsburgh T32 AG000181. All other authors report no relevant disclosures. Author disclosures are available in the Supporting information, (© 2024 The Authors. Alzheimer's & Dementia: Translational Research & Clinical Interventions published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Alzheimer's Association.)