Hearing Loss, Hearing Aids, and Cognition.

Importance: Most observational studies examining the association between hearing loss (HL) and cognitive impairment used subjective measures of hearing and addressed only one dimension of cognition, and very few investigated the potential benefit of hearing aids (HAs). Objective: To evaluate objectively measured HL and several dimensions of cognition and estimate the association with HA use. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional analysis of the CONSTANCES cohort study, which recruited participants from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2020, was conducted. Participants were a representative sample of adults (age, 45-69 years) with audiometric data and cognitive evaluation from 21 preventive health centers in France. Data analysis was conducted from April 1 to September 15, 2023. Exposure: The main exposure was HL, which was defined by a pure-tone average in the best ear higher than 20 dB hearing level for mild loss and 35 dB hearing level for disabling loss. Secondary exposure was self-reported HA use. Main Outcomes and Measures: Cognition was evaluated at study inclusion by a standardized battery of 5 cognitive tests conducted by trained neuropsychologists. A global cognitive score was computed from principal component analysis and global cognitive impairment was defined as having a score less than or equal to the 25th percentile of the distribution. Results: The study population included 62 072 participants with audiometric data (mean [SD] age, 57.4 [7] years; 52% women). Overall, 38% (n = 23 768) had mild HL, 10% (n = 6012) had disabling HL, and 3% (n = 1668) were HA users. In multivariable analyses, mild HL (odds ratio [OR], 1.10; 95% CI, 1.05-1.15) and disabling HL (OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.16-1.33) were associated with greater global cognitive impairment. The odds of cognitive impairment did not differ significantly between all participants with HA use and participants with disabling HL without HAs (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.83-1.07), except among participants with depression (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44-0.88). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, an association between the severity of HL and global cognitive impairment was found. The use of HAs was not associated with significantly lower odds of cognitive impairment. The findings suggest that it may be useful to monitor cognitive function in middle-aged individuals with HL.

Cochlear Implantation in Neurofibromatosis Type 2-Related Schwannomatosis: Long-Term Hearing Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate long-term hearing outcomes following cochlear implantation in patients with neurofibromatosis type 2 and ipsilateral vestibular schwannoma. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: Tertiary general hospital. METHODS: Twenty-two patients undergoing cochlear implantation between 2004 and 2018 with at least 1 year of follow-up were included. Patients were categorized as "users" or "nonusers" of their cochlear implant (CI). For users, speech perception (disyllabic words) without lip-reading was assessed in quiet conditions 1-year postimplantation, and annually thereafter. CI users were classified into 2 groups on the basis of speech intelligibility (≥40% or <40%). Demographic data, treatment options, and tumor size were also recorded. RESULTS: One year after implantation, 16 (73%) patients used their CI daily. Twelve of these patients had a speech intelligibility ≥40% (mean: 74 ± 21.9%). Three had a Koos stage IV tumor. At the last visit (mean duration of follow-up: 6 ± 5 years), 12 of these 16 patients were still using their implant daily, and 6 had a speech intelligibility ≥40%. No predictive factors for good performance at 1 year or performance stability were identified. CONCLUSION: Neurofibromatosis type 2 is a complex disease profoundly affecting patient quality of life, and cochlear implantation should always be considered on a case-by-case basis. In some individuals, cochlear implantation can provide good speech intelligibility for extended periods, even posttreatment or in cases of large tumors.

Reproducibility of hippocampal atrophy rates measured with manual, FreeSurfer, AdaBoost, FSL/FIRST and the MAPS-HBSI methods in Alzheimer's disease.

The purpose of this study is to assess the reproducibility of hippocampal atrophy rate measurements of commonly used fully-automated algorithms in Alzheimer disease (AD). The reproducibility of hippocampal atrophy rate for FSL/FIRST, AdaBoost, FreeSurfer, MAPS independently and MAPS combined with the boundary shift integral (MAPS-HBSI) were calculated. Back-to-back (BTB) 3D T1-weighted MPRAGE MRI from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI1) study at baseline and year one were used. Analysis on 3 groups of subjects was performed - 562 subjects at 1.5T, a 75 subject group that also had manual segmentation and 111 subjects at 3T. A simple and novel statistical test based on the binomial distribution was used that handled outlying data points robustly. Median hippocampal atrophy rates were -1.1%/year for healthy controls, -3.0%/year for mildly cognitively impaired and -5.1%/year for AD subjects. The best reproducibility was observed for MAPS-HBSI (1.3%), while the other methods tested had reproducibilities at least 50% higher at 1.5T and 3T which was statistically significant. For a clinical trial, MAPS-HBSI should require less than half the subjects of the other methods tested. All methods had good accuracy versus manual segmentation. The MAPS-HBSI method has substantially better reproducibility than the other methods considered.