IMPORTANCEThe COVID-19 pandemic led to sharp declines in cancer screening. However, the total deficit in screening in the US associated with the pandemic and the differential impact on individuals in different geographic regions and by socioeconomic status (SES) index have yet to be fully characterized.OBJECTIVES To quantify the screening rates for breast, colorectal, and prostate cancers associated with the COVID-19 pandemic in different geographic regions and for individuals in different SES index quartiles and estimate the overall cancer screening deficit in 2020 across the US population. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This retrospective cohort study uses the HealthCore Integrated Research Database, which comprises single-payer administrative claims data and enrollment information covering approximately 60 million people in Medicare Advantage and commercial health plans from across geographically diverse regions of the US. Participants were individuals in the database in January through July of 2018, 2019, and 2020 without diagnosis of the cancer of interest prior to the analytic index month. EXPOSURES Analytic index month and year. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Receipt of breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer screening.RESULTS Screening for all 3 cancers declined sharply in March through May of 2020 compared with 2019, with the sharpest decline in April (breast, −90.8%; colorectal, −79.3%; prostate, −63.4%) and near complete recovery of monthly screening rates by July for breast and prostate cancers. The absolute deficit across the US population in screening associated with the COVID-19 pandemic was estimated to be 3.9 million (breast), 3.8 million (colorectal), and 1.6 million (prostate). Geographic differences were observed: the Northeast experienced the sharpest declines in screening, while the West had a slower recovery compared with the Midwest and South. For example, percentage change in breast cancer screening rate (2020 vs 2019) for the month of April ranged from −87.3% (95% CI, −87.9% to −86.7%) in the West to −94.5% (95% CI, −94.9% to −94.1%) in the Northeast (decline). For the month of July, it ranged from −0.3% (95% CI, −2.1% to 1.5%) in the Midwest to −10.6% (−12.6% to −8.4%) in the West (recovery). By SES, the largest screening decline was observed in individuals in the highest SES index quartile, leading to a narrowing in the disparity in cancer screening by SES in 2020. For example, prostate cancer screening rates per 100 000 enrollees for individuals in the lowest and highest SES index quartiles, respectively, were 3525 (95% CI, 3444 to 3607) and 4329 (95% CI, 4271 to 4386) in April 2019 compared with 1535 (95% CI, 1480 to 1589) and 1338 (95% CI, 1306 to 1370) in April 2020. Multivariable analysis showed that telehealth use was associated with higher cancer screening.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Public health efforts are needed to address the large cancer screening deficit associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, including increased use of screening modalities that do not require a procedure.

The lowest socioeconomic status (SES) quartile is SES 1, and SES 4 is the highest quartile. Error bars represent the 95% Wilson score CIs for the proportions.

Background Hearing loss is prevalent and associated with adverse functional outcomes in older adults. Prevention thus has far-reaching implications, yet few modifiable risk factors have been identified. Hypertension may contribute to age-related hearing loss, but epidemiologic evidence is mixed. We studied a prospective cohort of 3,343 individuals from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study, aged 44-65 years at baseline with up to 30 years of follow-up. Methods Hearing was assessed in late-life (2016-17) using a better-ear audiometric pure tone average (PTA, 0.5, 1, 2, 4 kHz) and the Quick Speech-in-Noise (QuickSIN) test. Hypertension was defined as systolic blood pressure ≥140 mmHg, diastolic blood pressure ≥90 mmHg or antihypertensive medication use. Mid-life hypertension was defined by hypertension at two consecutive visits between 1987-89 and 1996-98. Late-life hypertension was defined in 2016-17. Late-life low blood pressure was defined as systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure <60 mmHg, irrespective of antihypertensive medication use. Associations between blood pressure patterns from mid-to-late-life and hearing outcomes were assessed using multivariable-adjusted linear regression. Results Compared to persistent normotension, persistent hypertension from mid-to-late-life was associated with worse central auditory processing (difference in QuickSIN score = -0.66 points, 95% CI: -1.14, -0.17) but not with audiometric hearing. Conclusions Participants with persistent hypertension had poorer late-life central auditory processing. These findings suggest that hypertension may be more strongly related to hearing-related changes in the brain than in the cochlea.

IMPORTANCEThe implications of cigarette smoking and smoking cessation for hearing impairment remain unknown. Many studies on this topic have failed to account for attrition among smokers in their findings.OBJECTIVE To assess the association of cigarette smoking patterns with audiometric and speech-in-noise hearing measures among participants of the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis cross-sectional study included participants of the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study from 4 US communities. The analysis includes data from visit 1 (1987-1989) through visit 6 (2016-2017); data were analyzed from March 16 through June 25, 2021. Audiometric hearing and speech-in-noise testing was offered to all participants at visit 6. Participants with incomplete audiometric data or missing data for educational level, body mass index, drinking status, a diabetes or hypertension diagnosis, or occupational noise were excluded. In addition, individuals were excluded if they self-reported as having other than Black or White race and ethnicity, or if they self-reported as having Black race or ethnicity and lived in 2 predominantly White communities.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Smoking behavior was classified from visit 1 (1987)(1988)(1989) to visit 6 (2016-2017) using group-based trajectory modeling based on self-reported smoking status at each clinic visit. Hearing was assessed at visit 6. An audiometric 4-frequency (0.5, 1, 2, 4 kHz) pure-tone average (PTA) was calculated for the better-hearing ear and modeled as a continuous variable. Speech-in-noise perception was assessed via the Quick Speech-in-Noise Test (QuickSIN) and modeled continuously. Attrition during the 30 years of follow-up was addressed by inverse probability of attrition weighting.RESULTS A total of 3414 participants aged 72 to 94 years (median [IQR] age, 78.8 [76.0-82.9] years; 2032 [59.5%] women) when hearing was measured at visit 6 (2016-2017) were included in the cohort; 766 (22.4%) self-identified as Black and 2648 (77.6%) as White individuals. Study participants were classified into 3 smoking groups based on smoking behavior: never or former smoking at baseline (n = 2911 [85.3%]), quit smoking during the study period (n = 368 [10.8%]), and persistent smoking (n = 135 [4.0%]). In fully adjusted models, persistent smoking vs never or former smoking was associated with an average 2.69 (95% CI, 0.56-4.81) dB higher PTA (worse hearing) and 1.42 (95% CI, −2.29 to −0.56) lower QuickSIN score (worse performance). Associations were stronger when accounting for informative attrition during the study period (3.53 [95% CI, 1.14-5.93] dB higher PTA; 1.46 [95% CI, −2.52 to −0.41] lower QuickSIN scores). Smoking cessation during the study (vs never or former smoking) was not associated with changes in hearing. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn this cross-sectional study, persistent smoking was associated with worse audiometric hearing and speech-in-noise perception. Hearing measures among participants who quit smoking during the study ...

Purpose: To evaluate and quantify potential sociodemographic disparities in breast cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the use of telemedicine. Methods: We fielded a 52-item web-based questionnaire from 14 May 2020 to 1 July 2020 in partnership with several U.S.-based breast cancer advocacy groups. Individuals aged 18 or older were eligible for this study if they: (1) received routine breast cancer screening; OR (2) were undergoing diagnostic evaluation for breast cancer; OR (3) had ever been diagnosed with breast cancer. We used descriptive statistics to understand the extent of cancer care delay and telemedicine adoption and used multivariable logistic regression models to estimate the association of sociodemographic factors with odds of COVID-19-related delays in care and telemedicine use. Results: Of 554 eligible survey participants, 493 provided complete data on demographic and socioeconomic factors and were included in the analysis. Approximately half (n = 248, 50.3%) had a personal history of breast cancer. Overall, 188 (38.1%) participants had experienced any COVID-19-related delay in care including screening, diagnosis, or treatment, and 339 (68.8) reported having at least one virtual appointment during the study period. Compared to other insurance types, participants with Medicaid insurance were 2.58 times more likely to report a COVID-19-related delay in care (OR 2.58, 95% Cl: 1.05, 6.32; p = 0.039). Compared to participants with a household income of less than USD 50,000, those with a household income of USD 150,000 or more were 2.38 (OR 2.38, 95% Cl: 1.09, 5.17; p = 0.029) times more likely to adopt virtual appointments. Self-insured participants were 70% less likely to use virtual appointment compared to those in other insurance categories (OR 0.28, 95% Cl: 0.11, 0.73; p = 0.009). Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on breast cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment, and accelerated the delivery of virtual care. Lower-income groups and patients with certain insurance categories such as Medicaid or self-insured could be more likely to experience care delay or less likely to use telemedicine. Careful attention must be paid to vulnerable groups to insure equity in breast cancer-related service utilization and telemedicine access during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has altered the health care delivery system. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on breast cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment. Methods: Potential survey respondents were identified through partnerships with breast cancer organizations including Dr. Susan Love Foundation for Breast Cancer Research, SHARE, Survivingbreastcancer.org, Sisters Network Inc., the African American Breast Cancer Alliance, and through ResearchMatch.org. Study information was shared via social media, websites, or email. Individuals were eligible for this study if they: 1) receive routine breast cancer screening, or 2) are undergoing diagnostic evaluation for breast cancer, or 3) had ever been diagnosed with breast cancer. Participants accessed and completed the 10-15-minute REDCap survey either by emailing the research team and receiving a private survey link or by clicking a public link. The survey collected information on respondent demographics; breast cancer screening and diagnosis; the extent to which screening, diagnosis, or treatment had been changed, delayed, or canceled because of COVID-19; personal protective practices; extent of worry about financial and health implications of COVID-19; and use of telemedicine. We used descriptive statistical analyses to better understand the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on respondents. Results: There are currently 415 survey respondents, 404 of whom agreed to participate in the study. 46.8% (N=189) of respondents were white, 26.7% (N=108) Black, 6.7% (N=27) Asian, and 5.5% Hispanic or Latino (N=22). Most respondents were between the ages of 50 and 69 years (52.2%, N=211). 43.3% (N=175) of respondents had been diagnosed with breast cancer and, of those, 36% (N=63) were in active treatment. More than a quarter of participants (26.5%, N=107) reported delayed or canceled breast cancer care due to COVID-19; the most frequently affected care was screening mammogram, ultrasound, or MRI (97.2%, N=104). 20.6% (N=13) of women in active treatment reported delayed or canceled surgery, chemotherapy, or radiation visits. 22.3% (N=90) of respondents reported that an in-person visit was changed to a phone call or videoconference, and 39.1% (N=158) said they had discussed COVID-19 with a health care provider. 29.1% (N=51) of those with breast cancer were worried or very worried that the COVID-19 pandemic would make it harder for them to get cancer care; among those without breast cancer, 34.9% (N=80) were worried that COVID-19 would make it harder to obtain health care, including breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic continues to disrupt breast cancer-related care, primarily screening. Planning and coordination are necessary to ensure the timely return of these patients to care. Most participants agreed to be contacted for follow-up, allowing us to investigate the long-term effects of delayed breast cancer screening, diagnostic evaluation, and treatment on health outcomes. Citation Format: Erica T. Warner, Emily Restrepo, Christine Benjamin, Ricki Fairley, Laura Roudebush, Leah Eshraghi, Crystal Hertz, Simo Du, Laura Carfang. Patient-reported impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on breast cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment: A national survey [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer; 2020 Jul 20-22. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2020;26(18_Suppl):Abstract nr S11-02.

Background To measure the association between individual life-course socioeconomic position (SEP) and hearing aid use, we examined childhood and adulthood socioeconomic variables collected at the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study baseline visit (1987–1989)/Life Course Socioeconomic Status study (2001–2002) and hearing aid use data collected at visit 6 (2016–2017). Methods ARIC is a prospective cohort study of older adults (45–64 years) recruited from 4 U.S. communities. This analysis included a subset of 2 470 participants with hearing loss at visit 6 (≥25 decibels hearing level [dB HL] better-ear) with complete hearing aid use data. Childhood SEP variables included parental education, parental occupation, and parental home ownership. Young and older adulthood SEP variables included income, education, occupation, and home ownership. Each life epoch was assigned a score ranging from 0 to 5 and then summed to calculate the individual cumulative SEP score. Multivariable-adjusted logistic regression was used to estimate the association between individual cumulative SEP and hearing aid use. Missing SEP scores were imputed for participants with incomplete socioeconomic data. Results Of the 2 470 participants in the analytic cohort (median [interquartile interval] age 79.9 [76.7–84.0], 1 330 [53.8%] women, 450 [18.2%] Black), 685 (27.7%) participants reported hearing aid use. Higher cumulative SEP was positively associated with hearing aid use (odds ratio [OR] = 1.09, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.04–1.14), and slightly stronger for childhood (OR = 1.09, 95% CI: 1.00–1.20) than older adulthood SEP score (OR = 1.06, 95% CI: 0.95–1.18). Conclusions In this community-based cohort of older adults with hearing loss, higher individual life-course SEP was positively associated with hearing aid use.

Purpose Objective examination of relationships among visual, hearing, and olfactory function may yield mechanistic insights and inform our understanding of the burden of multiple-sensory impairments. Methods This cross-sectional study capitalized on continuous measures of visual acuity (VA), contrast sensitivity, pure tone audiometry, Quick Speech-in-Noise (QuickSIN), and Sniffin’ Sticks from a subset of ARIC participants at two community sites (EyeDOC Study, 2017–2019). Scales of all measures were aligned such that higher values indicated greater impairment. Intersensory bivariate associations were assessed graphically, and correlations assessed using Kendall's tau. Intersensory associations, independent of age, education, smoking, diabetes, and hypertension, were examined using linear regression. Analyses were stratified by community/race (Washington County/White vs Jackson/Black) and sex (men vs women) to explore community–sex heterogeneity. Results We included 834 participants (mean age, 79 years); 39% were from Jackson and 63% females. We found weak intersensory correlations (tau generally ≤0.15). In the demographics-adjusted regression models, results were heterogeneous across communities and sex. Worse near VA, contrast sensitivity, and olfaction were associated with worse QuickSIN and worse near VA was associated with worse olfaction in some but not all community/race–sex groups (e.g., Jackson/Black women, 0.1 logMAR worse near VA was associated with 0.27 units increase in QuickSIN [95% confidence interval, 0.10–0.45]). Associations were modestly attenuated by adjustment for the shared risk factors of smoking, diabetes, and hypertension. Conclusions Visual dysfunction showed little or no association with hearing or olfaction impairments, suggesting a modest role for shared risk factors. Translational Relevance Visually impaired individuals have only a modestly higher risk of other sensory impairment.