Increased costs of <scp>HIV</scp> care associated with aging in an <scp>HIV</scp>‐infected population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Improved survival has shifted the HIV epidemic in the developed world towards more individuals >50 years of age. Older individuals, with new or longstanding HIV infection, are at greater risk for HIV-related and non-HIV-related conditions, compounding the burden and complexity of HIV management. The aim of the study was to examine the impact of age on the cost of HIV care in a well-defined HIV-infected population. METHODS: All HIV-infected individuals >16 years old receiving HIV care between 1 January 2000 and 1 January 2011 were included in the study. The costs of antiretroviral therapy (ART), HIV-related out-patient care and HIV-related in-patient care were collected using mean cost per person, per month (PPPM) as the comparator variable for the comparison between older (>50 years old) and younger (≤ 50 years old) patients. RESULTS: The proportion of older patients increased from 9.6% to 25.4% and proportional costs increased from 25% to 31% from 1999 to 2010. Older patients were more likely than younger patients to be on ART (89% vs. 69%, respectively; P<0.01) and to have AIDS (29% vs. 20%, respectively; P<0.05) but had similar median CD4 counts (404 vs. 396 cells/μL, respectively; not significant). They incurred higher costs for all aspects of HIV care throughout the entire 12 years. By 2010, the mean PPPM cost of HIV care for longstanding older patients was $1325 compared with $1075 for younger patients. More expensive ART as a consequence of more complex regimens, more comorbid interactions and greater adherence accounted for most of the cost difference. CONCLUSIONS: The aging of the HIV-infected population in care is leading to increased HIV care costs. Health care planners and funding agencies need to be aware of the impact of this important shift in HIV demographics on the overall costs of HIV care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".