We comprehensively summarized the cohort evidence to date on adult-onset hearing loss as risk factor for incident cognitive impairment and dementia, and examined the evidence for dose-response, risk for various dementia subtypes, and other moderators. Previous meta-analyses were less comprehensive. We included cohort studies with participants without dementia and with hearing assessments at baseline, minimum 2 years follow-up and incident cognitive outcomes. We used random-effect models and subgroup and meta-regression on moderator analyses. We identified fifty studies (N=1,548,754). Hearing loss (yes/no) was associated with incident dementia risk (HR=1.35 [95% CI = 1.26 - 1.45), mild cognitive impairment (MCI HR=1.29 [95% CI = 1.11 - 1.50]), cognitive decline not specified as MCI or dementia (HR=1.29 [95% CI = 1.17 - 1.42]), and Alzheimer's disease dementia (ADD, HR=1.56 [95% CI = 1.30 - 1.87]), but not with vascular dementia (HR, 1.30 [95% CI = 0.83 - 2.05]). Each 10-decibel worsening of hearing was associated with a 16% increase in dementia risk (95% CI = 1.07 - 1.27). The effect of hearing loss did not vary across potential moderators. Cohort studies consistently support that adult-onset hearing loss increases the risk of incident cognitive decline, dementia, MCI, and ADD.

Background: Age-related hearing loss and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) independently increase dementia risk. The Ageing and Cognitive Health Evaluation in Elders randomised controlled trial (RCT) found hearing aids reduce cognitive decline in high-risk older adults with poor hearing. Methods: This pilot RCT in London memory clinics randomised people with MCI (aged ≥55, untreated hearing loss defined as Pure Tone Average 0.5–4 KHz between 25–70 dB) into two groups. The intervention group received 4 sessions of hearing aid fitting and support. The control group received healthy ageing education and a GP letter recommending audiological referral. Both were followed for 6 months. Primary outcomes were recruitment (feasibility target: 50%; 95% CI: 39%–61%) and retention (feasibility target: 80%; 95% CI: 71%–89%); intervention completion (≥2 visits) and hearing aid use (acceptability target: 80%; 95% CI: 71%–89%) for the intervention group and 50% difference between arms (95% CI: 31%–69%). Secondary outcomes included hearing aid fitting, cognition and other measures. Results: From October 2018 to March 2020, 58 participants were recruited (29 per group, 95% [86%–99%]). Twenty-four participants were fitted with hearing aids in the intervention arm, and 6 in the control arm (difference: 62% [42%–82%]). At 6 months, retention was 81% [69%–90%]. Hearing intervention completion (≥2 visits) was achieved by 24 (83%). Daily hearing aid use was reported by 18 (75%) intervention versus 5 (22%) control participants, a difference of 53% [29%–77%]. Conclusion: Randomisation of people with MCI to a personalised hearing intervention versus control is feasible. These findings support proceeding to a fully-powered multicentre RCT.

Background: The public health measures imposed in many countries to contain the spread of COVID-19 resulted in significant suspensions in the provision of support and care for people with dementia. The negative effects of these measures have been extensively reported. However, little is known about the specific impact on people with young onset, non-memory-led and inherited dementias. This group may have experienced different challenges compared to those with late onset dementia given their non-memory phenotypes and younger age. We explored the impact of the first COVID-19 lockdown on people living with familial Alzheimer’s disease, behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia, familial frontotemporal dementia, dementia with Lewy bodies, posterior cortical atrophy and primary progressive aphasia and their carers in the UK and their self-reported strategies for coping.Methods: This was a mixed methods study. An online survey was administered to people with dementia and family carers recruited via Rare Dementia Support. Free-text responses were analysed using framework analysis to identify key issues and themes.Results: 184 carers and 24 people with dementia completed the survey. Overall, people with dementia experienced worsening of cognitive symptoms (70%), ability to do things (62%), well-being (57%) and changes to medication (26%) during lockdown. Carers reported a reduction in the support they received (55%) which impacted their own mental health negatively. Qualitative analysis of free-text responses shed light on how the disruption to routines, changes to roles and responsibilities, and widespread disconnection from friends, family and health and social care support varied according to phenotype. These impacts were exacerbated by a more general sense that precious time was being lost, given the progressive nature of dementia. Despite significant challenges, respondents demonstrated resilience and resourcefulness in reporting unexpected positives and strategies for adapting to confinement.Conclusions: This study has highlighted the specific impacts of the COVID-19 restrictions on people with young onset, non-memory-led and inherited dementias, including behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia, primary progressive aphasia and posterior cortical atrophy, and their carers. The specific challenges faced according to diagnosis and the self-reported strategies speak to the importance of – and may inform the development of – tailored support for these underrepresented groups more generally.Visual

Supporting dementia carers is a global priority. As a Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) (n = 352) of the Word Health Organization recommended, an internationally disseminated ‘iSupport’ e-health intervention was conducted, revealing no measurable benefits to the wellbeing of adult dementia carers. This process evaluation contributes original insights of the trial outcomes. Its aims were to ascertain the usability and acceptability of iSupport, participant engagement and adherence to iSupport, and contextual factors influencing its implementation and potential impact. The process evaluation followed a mixed-method design. The following data were collected from all participants randomised to iSupport (n = 175): (1) post-intervention evaluation questionnaire (n = 93) containing the 10-item System Usability Scale and bespoke items exploring acceptability, engagement, and perceived impact; (2) qualitative interviews (n = 52) with a sub-sample of participants who were purposively sampled according to age, scores on the outcome measures, and gender, as these interviews aimed to generate contextual detail and explanatory accounts; and (3) ‘Access’ data from the iSupport platform (n = 175). Descriptive statistics was used to report on the frequency of survey responses whilst a thematic analysis approach was followed to identify themes from the qualitative interview data. Data sets were analysed independently and then used with respect to one another in order to generate explanatory pathways related to the usability, acceptability, and the impact of iSupport. Despite good trial retention, 8.3% of participants (n = 32) did not spend any time on iSupport, and 54% (n = 94) spent between 30 min and 1.5 h. Factors driving this were the following: time constrains, method of delivery, and content characteristics. Positive impacts of iSupport were also described. Participants, including those with extensive caring experience, reported how iSupport had made them feel reassured, valued, and more able to ask for help. They also reported having an improved outlook on their caring role and on the needs and feelings of the person living with dementia. Research and practice should focus on exploring blended delivery, including self-directed and interactive components, such as regular contact with a health professional. These insights are critical for supporting the global implementation and adaptation of iSupport and offer valuable directions for future research.