Survival of people aged 50 years and older by HIV and HIV treatment status: findings from three waves of the SAGE-Wellbeing of Older People Study (SAGE-WOPS) in Uganda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Data on the survival status of older adults on antiretroviral treatment (ART) are scarce in sub-Saharan Africa. The objective of this study was to determine the survival status of people aged 50 years and older who were HIV-negative, HIV-positive not on ART, and HIV-positive on ART. METHODS: We used three waves of data from the World Health Organisation Study on Global Ageing and adult health- Well Being of Older People Study cohort in Uganda, conducted in 2009, 2012-2013 and 2015-2016. The cohort included HIV-negative and HIV-positive persons aged 50 years and older recruited from multiple rural and peri-urban sites in Uganda. Data were collected using interviewer-administered questionnaire. Time-dependent ART data were collected from medical records using a data-abstraction form. This study was conducted before the universal test and treat policy came into effect. We fitted Cox survival models to estimate hazard ratios to compare the risk of death between groups, adjusted for age, sex, marital status and hypertension. RESULTS: Of 623 participants, 517 (82.9%) of respondents had follow-up data and were included in this analysis. We observed 1571 person-years of follow-up from 274 people who were HIV-negative, and 1252 from 243 who were HIV-positive. The estimated mortality adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) was 1.89 (95% CI 1.0-3.4; p = 0.04) among people living with HIV compared to HIV-negative people. The aHR for mortality among people receiving ART compared with HIV-negative people was 1.75 (95% CI 0.9-3.5). People who were HIV-positive and not receiving ART had the greatest risk of death (aHR = 2.09, 95% CI 1.0-4.4 compared with HIV negative participants). The aHR for HIV-positive people not receiving ART, compared to those who were on treatment, was 1.19 (95% CI 0.6-2.5). CONCLUSION: Older adults living with HIV on ART had a risk of mortality that was nearly twice as high as HIV-negative adults. Further analyses of longitudinal data should be done to understand factors that affect the survival of older adults on ART.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".