97 Exploring Urban-Rural Disparities in Alzheimer’s disease: Clinical characterization of a southern Nevada cohort

Abstract

Objective:

As the US population ages, the prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (AD/RD) is on the rise. This is especially true in rural America, where mortality rates due to AD/RD are rising faster than in metropolitan areas. To date, however, people living in rural communities are severely underrepresented in aging research. The Nevada Exploratory Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center (NVeADRC) seeks to address this gap. Here, we present preliminary cognitive data from our rural-dwelling cohort, as well as relevant demographic and clinical characteristics.

Participants and Methods:

Individuals with normal cognition (NC), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease (AD) living in rural communities, defined as a rural-urban commuting area (RUCA) code of 4 or higher, were enrolled through either clinic or community outreach. Eligibility for the observational cohort required: age >55 years, primarily English-speaking, primary residence in a rural community, and availability of a study partner. Measures included the Uniform Data Set (v3), blood-based biomarkers, structural brain MRI, and portions of the PhenX Social Determinants of Health toolkit. Participants are seen at baseline and followed annually, with interim remote visits every 6 months. A multidisciplinary consensus diagnosis is rendered after each visit. Where feasible, a harmonized urban cohort followed by the Nevada Center for Neurodegeneration and Translational Neuroscience (CNTN) was used for comparison.

Results:

Fifty-six rural-dwelling (age=70.4±7.1 years; edu=15.2±2.6 years; 61% female) and 148 urban-dwelling (age=72.9±6.8 years; edu=15.8±2.7 years; 46% female) older adults were included; age significantly differed between cohorts but education did not. The rural cohort was 46% NC (MoCA=26.8±2.3; CDRsob=0.3±0.6), 32% MCI (MoCA=22.8±3.1; CDRsob=1.2±1.0), and 22% AD (MoCA=16.9±5.5; CDRsob=5.2±3.0). The urban cohort was 39% NC (MoCA=26.4±2.6; CDRsob=0.3±0.8), 44% MCI (MoCA=22.3±3.1; CDRsob=2.0±1.5) and 17% AD (MoCA=18.6±3.9; CDRsob=4.7±2.3). Rural communities were significantly more disadvantaged, as measured by the Area Deprivation Index (ADI), than urban communities (rural ADI=6.3±2.6; urban ADI=3.4±2.3; p<.001). Fifty-percent of the rural cohort lives in a moderate to severely disadvantaged neighborhood (ADI Decile>7) compared to 12% of the urban cohort, and 11% of individuals in the rural cohort reported living more than 30 miles from the nearest medical facility. Across the combined cohort, education was significantly correlated with ADI deciles (r=-.30, p<.001), with people in the areas of highest disadvantage having the lowest education. Verbal memory was also inversely associated with ADI. There were no differences in clinical diagnosis as a function of ADI rank.

Conclusions:

Living in a rural community conveys a multifaceted array of risks and benefits, some of which differ from urban settings. The literature to date suggests that older adults living in rural communities are at significantly increased risk for morbidity and mortality due to AD/RD, though it is unclear why. Preliminary data from the NVeADRC show that increasing levels of neighborhood disadvantage were associated with lower levels of education and worse verbal memory in this convenience sample. The combined effect of low education and increased disadvantage account for some of the urban-rural differences in mortality that have been reported, though additional research on representative samples in this underrepresented population is critical.