18 research outputs found
Scaling up HIV self-testing in sub-Saharan Africa: a review of technology, policy and evidence.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: HIV self-testing (HIVST) can provide complementary coverage to existing HIV testing services and improve knowledge of status among HIV-infected individuals. This review summarizes the current technology, policy and evidence landscape in sub-Saharan Africa and priorities within a rapidly evolving field. RECENT FINDINGS: HIVST is moving towards scaled implementation, with the release of WHO guidelines, WHO prequalification of the first HIVST product, price reductions of HIVST products and a growing product pipeline. Multicountry evidence from southern and eastern Africa confirms high feasibility, acceptability and accuracy across many delivery models and populations, with minimal harms. Evidence on the effectiveness of HIVST on increased testing coverage is strong, while evidence on demand generation for follow-on HIV prevention and treatment services and cost-effective delivery is emerging. Despite these developments, HIVST delivery remains limited outside of pilot implementation. SUMMARY: Important technology gaps include increasing availability of more sensitive HIVST products in low and middle-income countries. Regulatory and postmarket surveillance systems for HIVST also require further development. Randomized trials evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness under multiple distribution models, including unrestricted delivery and with a focus on linkage to HIV prevention and treatment, remain priorities. Diversification of studies from west and central Africa and around blood-based products should be addressed
Informing targeted HIV self-testing: a protocol for discrete choice experiments in Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe
Introduction
HIV self-testing (HIVST) is a new approach to HIV testing where a person collects his or her own specimen, performs an HIV test and interprets the result, either alone or with someone he or she trusts. It is becoming increasingly relevant as a complement to standard-of-care HIV testing and is now recommended by the World Health Organization. Few studies have explored user preferences around HIVST service delivery and optimal models for increasing uptake and linkage to care, particularly among hard-to-reach populations. This paper describes an ongoing study that uses discrete choice experiments (DCE) to identify key HIVST service characteristics that drive people’s willingness to self-test for HIV and link to care, measure the relative strength of user preferences, and explore preference heterogeneity in Southern Africa.
Method and Analysis
Two DCEs – one on HIVST delivery and one on linkage to care after a positive self-test – are being administered in Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe. The designs in each country were informed by a qualitative study, which identified key HIVST service characteristics that influence user decision-making and refined scenario presentations and illustrations. Following data collection, DCE data will be analysed using a multinomial logit model as well as latent class, nested logit and generalised mixed models to examine heterogeneity in preferences by sociodemographic background, HIV testing experience and sexual behaviour.
Ethics and dissemination
The study has been approved by the College of Medicine Research Ethics Committee in Malawi, the Biomedical Ethics Committee of the University of Zambia, the Medical Research Council of Zimbabwe and the Research Ethics Committee of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Findings from the study will be presented at international conferences and in peer-reviewed journals. The results will help inform the HIVST implementation strategy in Southern Africa, particularly among populations underserved by standard-of-care services, such as men and young women
Too much of a good thing? Prevalence and determinants of frequent HIV testing in Zambia and Malawi
'I will choose when to test, where I want to test': investigating young people's preferences for HIV self-testing in Malawi and Zimbabwe.
OBJECTIVES: The current study identifies young people's preferences for HIV self-testing (HIVST) delivery, determines the relative strength of preferences and explores underlying behaviors and perceptions to inform youth-friendly services in southern Africa. DESIGN: A mixed methods design was adopted in Malawi and Zimbabwe and includes focus group discussions, in-depth interviews and discrete choice experiments. METHODS: The current study was conducted during the formative phase of cluster-randomized trials of oral-fluid HIVST distribution. Young people aged 16-25 years were purposively selected for in-depth interviews (n = 15) in Malawi and 12 focus group discussions (n = 107) across countries. Representative samples of young people in both countries (n = 341) were administered discrete choice experiments on HIVST delivery, with data analyzed to estimate relative preferences. The qualitative results provided additional depth and were triangulated with the quantitative findings. RESULTS: There was strong concordance across methods and countries based on the three triangulation parameters: product, provider and service characteristics. HIVST was highly accepted by young people, if provided at no or very low cost. Young people expressed mixed views on oral-fluid tests, weighing perceived benefits with accuracy concerns. There was an expressed lack of trust in health providers and preference for lay community distributors. HIVST addressed youth-specific barriers to standard HIV testing, with home-based distribution considered convenient. Issues of autonomy, control, respect and confidentiality emerged as key qualitative themes. CONCLUSION: HIVST services can be optimized to reach young people if products are provided through home-based distribution and at low prices, with respect for them as autonomous individuals
ART initiations following community-based distribution of HIV self-tests: meta-analysis and meta-regression of STAR Initiative data.
INTRODUCTION: Measuring linkage after community-based testing, particularly HIV self-testing (HIVST), is challenging. Here, we use data from studies of community-based HIVST distribution, conducted within the STAR Initiative, to assess initiation of antiretroviral therapy (ART) and factors driving differences in linkage rates. METHODS: Five STAR studies evaluated HIVST implementation in Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe. New ART initiations during the months of intervention at clinics in HIVST and comparison areas were presented graphically, and study effects combined using meta-analysis. Meta-regression was used to estimate associations between the impact of community-based HIVST distribution and indicators of implementation context, intensity and reach. Effect size estimates used (1) prespecified trial definitions of ART timing and comparator facilities and (2) exploratory definitions accounting for unexpected diffusion of HIVST into comparison areas and periods with less distribution of HIVST than was expected. RESULTS: Compared with arms with standard testing only, ART initiations were higher in clinics in HIVST distribution areas in 4/5 studies. The prespecified meta-analysis found positive but variable effects of HIVST on facility ART initiations (RR: 1.14, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.40; p=0.21). The exploratory meta-analysis found a stronger impact of HIVST distribution on ART initiations (RR: 1.29, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.55, p=0.02).ART initiations were higher in studies with greater self-reported population-level intensity of HIVST use (RR: 1.12; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.21; p=0.02.), but did not differ by national-level indicators of ART use among people living with HIV, number of HIVST kits distributed per 1000 population, or self-reported knowledge of how to link to care after a reactive HIVST. CONCLUSION: Community-based HIVST distribution has variable effect on ART initiations compared with standard testing service alone. Optimising both support for and approach to measurement of effective and timely linkage or relinkage to HIV care and prevention following HIVST is needed to maximise impact and guide implementation strategies
Costs and Cost-Effectiveness of Biomedical, Non-Surgical HIV Prevention Interventions: A Systematic Literature Review.
BACKGROUND: Considerable evidence on the costs and cost-effectiveness of biomedical, non-surgical interventions to prevent human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) transmission has been generated over the last decade. This study aims to synthesize findings and identify remaining knowledge gaps to suggest future research priorities. METHODS: A systematic literature review was carried out in August 2020 using the MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health and EconLit databases to retrieve economic evaluations and costing studies of oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), injectable long-acting PrEP, vaginal microbicide rings and gels, HIV vaccines and broadly neutralizing antibodies. Studies reporting costs from the provider or societal perspective were included in the analysis. Those reporting on behavioural methods of prevention, condoms and surgical approaches (voluntary medical male circumcision) were excluded. The quality of reporting of the included studies was assessed using published checklists. RESULTS: We identified 3007 citations, of which 87 studies were retained. Most were set in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs; n = 53) and focused on the costs and/or cost-effectiveness of oral PrEP regimens (n = 70). Model-based economic evaluations were the most frequent study design; only two trial-based cost-effectiveness analyses and nine costing studies were found. Less than half of the studies provided practical details on how the intervention would be delivered by the health system, and only three of these, all in LMICs, explicitly focused on service integration and its implication for delivery costs. 'Real-world' programme delivery mechanisms and costs of intervention delivery were rarely considered. PrEP technologies were generally found to be cost-effective only when targeting high-risk subpopulations. Single-dose HIV vaccines are expected to be cost-effective for all groups despite substantial uncertainty around pricing. CONCLUSIONS: A lack of primary, detailed and updated cost data, including above-service level costs, from a variety of settings makes it difficult to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of specific delivery modes at scale, or to evaluate strategies for services integration. Closing this evidence gap around real-world implementation is vital, not least because the strategies targeting high-risk groups that are recommended by PrEP models may incur substantially higher costs and be of limited practical feasibility in some settings
Do community measures impact the effectiveness of a community led HIV testing intervention. Secondary analysis of an HIV self-testing intervention in rural communities in Zimbabwe
Background:
There is a growing body of evidence for the role that communities can have in producing beneficial health outcomes. There is also an increasing recognition of the effectiveness and success of community-led interventions to promote public health efforts. This study investigated whether and how community-level measures facilitate a community-led intervention to achieve improved HIV outcomes.
Methods:
This is a secondary analysis of survey data from a cluster randomised trial in 40 rural communities in Zimbabwe. The survey was conducted four months after the intervention was initiated. Communities were randomised 1:1 to either paid distribution arm, where HIV self-test (HIVST) kits were distributed by a paid distributor, or community-led whereby members of the community were responsible for organising and conducting the distribution of HIVST kits. We used mixed effects logistic regression to assess the effect of social cohesion, problem solving, and HIV awareness on HIV testing and prevention.
Results:
We found no association between community measures and the three HIV outcomes (self-testing, new HIV diagnosis and linkage to VMMC or confirmatory testing). However, the interaction analyses highlighted that in high social cohesion communities, the odds of new HIV diagnosis was greater in the community-led arm than paid distribution arm (OR 2.06 95% CI 1.03–4.19).
Conclusion:
We found some evidence that community-led interventions reached more undiagnosed people living with HIV in places with high social cohesion. Additional research should seek to understand whether the effect of social cohesion is persistent across other community interventions and outcomes. Trial registration: PACTR201607001701788
Experience of social harms among female sex workers following HIV self-test distribution in Malawi: results of a cohort study
Background:
In Malawi, female sex workers (FSW) have high HIV incidence and regular testing is suggested. HIV self-testing (HIVST) is a safe and acceptable alternative to standard testing services. This study assessed; whether social harms were more likely to be reported after HIVST distribution to FSW by peer distributors than after facility-based HIV testing and whether FSW regretted HIVST use or experienced associated relationship problems.
Methods:
Peer HIVST distributors, who were FSW, were recruited in Blantyre district, Malawi between February and July 2017. Among HIVST recipients a prospective cohort was recruited. Interviews were conducted at baseline and at end-line, 3 months later. Participants completed daily sexual activity diaries. End-line data were analysed using logistic regression to assess whether regret or relationship problems were associated with HIVST use. Sexual activity data were analysed using Generalised Estimating Equations to assess whether HIVST use was temporally associated with an increase in social harms.
Results:
Of 265 FSW recruited and offered HIVST, 131 completed both interviews. Of these, 31/131(23.7%) reported initial regret after HIVST use, this reduced to 23/131(17.6%) at the 3-month follow-up. Relationship problems were reported by 12/131(9.2%). Regret about HIVST use was less commonly reported in those aged 26–35 years compared to those aged 16–25 years (OR immediate regret—0.40 95% CI 0.16–1.01) (OR current regret—0.22 95% CI 0.07 – 0.71) and was not associated with the HIVST result. There was limited evidence that reports of verbal abuse perpetrated by clients in the week following HIVST use were greater than when there was no testing in the preceding week. There was no evidence for increases in any other social harms. There was some evidence of coercion to test, most commonly initiated by the peer distributor.
Conclusions:
Little evidence was found that the peer distribution model was associated with increased levels of social harms, however programmes aimed at reaching FSW need to carefully consider possible unintended consequences of their service delivery approaches, including the potential for peer distributors to coerce individuals to test or disclose their test results and alternative distribution models may need to be considered
Pragmatic economic evaluation of community-led delivery of HIV self-testing in Malawi.
INTRODUCTION: Community-based strategies can extend coverage of HIV testing and diagnose HIV at earlier stages of infection but can be costly to implement. We evaluated the costs and effects of community-led delivery of HIV self-testing (HIVST) in Mangochi District, Malawi. METHODS: This economic evaluation was based within a pragmatic cluster-randomised trial of 30 group village heads and their catchment areas comparing the community-led HIVST intervention in addition to the standard of care (SOC) versus the SOC alone. The intervention involved mobilising community health groups to lead 7-day HIVST campaigns including distribution of HIVST kits. The SOC included facility-based HIV testing services. Primary costings estimated economic costs of the intervention and SOC from the provider perspective, with costs annualised and measured in 2018 US138 624 or 263 400 or 3.77, 95% CI 5.10; p<0.001), while the intervention effect on HIV positivity varied based on adjustment for previous diagnosis. The incremental cost per person tested HIV positive was 1312 and $985 when adjusting for previously diagnosed self-testers or self-testers on treatment, respectively. Community-led HIVST demonstrated low probability of being cost-effective against plausible willingness-to-pay values, with HIV positivity a key determinant. CONCLUSION: Community-led HIVST can provide HIV testing at a low additional unit cost. However, adding community-led HIVST to the SOC was not likely to be cost-effective, especially in contexts with low prevalence of undiagnosed HIV. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03541382
Effect of community-led delivery of HIV self-testing on HIV testing and antiretroviral therapy initiation in Malawi: A cluster-randomised trial
BACKGROUND: Undiagnosed HIV infection remains substantial in key population subgroups including adolescents, older adults, and men, driving ongoing transmission in sub-Saharan Africa. We evaluated the impact, safety, and costs of community-led delivery of HIV self-testing (HIVST), aiming to increase HIV testing in underserved subgroups and stimulate demand for antiretroviral therapy (ART). METHODS AND FINDINGS: This cluster-randomised trial, conducted between October 2018 and July 2019, used restricted randomisation (1:1) to allocate 30 group village head clusters in Mangochi district, Malawi to the community-led HIVST intervention in addition to the standard of care (SOC) or the SOC alone. The intervention involved mobilising community health groups to lead the design and implementation of 7-day HIVST campaigns, with cluster residents (≥15 years) eligible for HIVST. The primary outcome compared lifetime HIV testing among adolescents (15 to 19 years) between arms. Secondary outcomes compared: recent HIV testing (in the last 3 months) among older adults (≥40 years) and men; cumulative 6-month incidence of ART initiation per 100,000 population; knowledge of the preventive benefits of HIV treatment; and HIV testing stigma. Outcomes were measured through a post-intervention survey and at neighboring health facilities. Analysis used intention-to-treat for cluster-level outcomes. Community health groups delivered 24,316 oral fluid-based HIVST kits. The survey included 90.2% (3,960/4,388) of listed participants in the 15 community-led HIVST clusters and 89.2% (3,920/4,394) of listed participants in the 15 SOC clusters. Overall, the proportion of men was 39.0% (3,072/7,880). Most participants obtained primary-level education or below, were married, and reported a sexual partner. Lifetime HIV testing among adolescents was higher in the community-led HIVST arm (84.6%, 770/910) than the SOC arm (67.1%, 582/867; adjusted risk difference [RD] 15.2%, 95% CI 7.5% to 22.9%; p < 0.001), especially among 15 to 17 year olds and boys. Recent testing among older adults was also higher in the community-led HIVST arm (74.5%, 869/1,166) than the SOC arm (31.5%, 350/1,111; adjusted RD 42.1%, 95% CI 34.9% to 49.4%; p < 0.001). Similarly, the proportions of recently tested men were 74.6% (1,177/1,577) and 33.9% (507/1,495) in the community-led HIVST and SOC arms, respectively (adjusted RD 40.2%, 95% CI 32.9% to 47.4%; p < 0.001). Knowledge of HIV treatment benefits and HIV testing stigma showed no differences between arms. Cumulative incidence of ART initiation was respectively 305.3 and 226.1 per 100,000 population in the community-led HIVST and SOC arms (RD 72.3, 95% CI -36.2 to 180.8; p = 0.18). In post hoc analysis, ART initiations in the 3-month post-intervention period were higher in the community-led HIVST arm than the SOC arm (RD 97.7, 95% CI 33.4 to 162.1; p = 0.004). HIVST uptake was 74.7% (2,956/3,960), with few adverse events (0.6%, 18/2,955) and at US$5.70 per HIVST kit distributed. The main limitations include the use of self-reported HIV testing outcomes and lack of baseline measurement for the primary outcome. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found that community-led HIVST was effective, safe, and affordable, with population impact and coverage rapidly realised at low cost. This approach could enable community HIV testing in high HIV prevalence settings and demonstrates potential for economies of scale and scope. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03541382