Search

Introduction: HIV self-testing (HIVST) is recommended by the World Health Organization in addition to other testing modalities to increase uptake of HIV testing, particularly among harder-to-reach populations. This study provides the first empirica evidence of the costs of door-to-door community-based HIVST distribution in Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Methods: HIVST kits were distributed door-to-door in 71 sites across Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe from June 2016 to May 2017. Programme expenditures, supplemented by on-site observation and monitoring and evaluation data were used to estimate total economic and unit costs of HIVST distribution, by input and site. Inputs were categorized into start-up, capital and recurrent costs. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed to assess the impact of key parameters on unit costs. Results: In total, 152,671, 103,589 and 93,459 HIVST kits were distributed in Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe over 12, 11 and 10 months respectively. Across these countries, 43% to 51% of HIVST kits were distributed to men. The average cost per HIVST kit distributed was US$8.15, US$16.42 and US$13.84 in Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe, respectively, with pronounced intersite variation within countries driven largely by site-level fixed costs. Site-level recurrent costs were 70% to 92% of full costs and 20% to 62% higher than routine HIV testing services (HTS) costs. Personnel costs contributed from 26% to 52% of total costs across countries reflecting differences in remuneration approaches and country GDP. Conclusions: These early door-to-door community HIVST distribution programmes show large potential, both for reaching untested populations and for substantial economies of scale as HIVST programmes scale-up and mature. From a societal perspective, the costs of HIVST appear similar to conventional HTS, with the higher providers' costs substantially offsetting user costs. Future approaches to minimizing cost and/or maximize testing coverage could include unpaid door-to-door community-led distribution to reach end-users and integrating HIVST into routine clinical services via direct or secondary distribution strategies with lower fixed costs. Keywords: HIV self-testing; costs and cost analysis; community; Malawi; Zambia; Zimbabwe, 1 | INTRODUCTION In East and Southern Africa, freely available HIV services have led to a 42% reduction in AIDS-related deaths between 2010 and 2016. Despite such gains, 24% of [...]

Introduction: Social, structural and systems barriers inhibit uptake of HIV testing. HIV self-testing (HIVST) has shown promising uptake by otherwise underserved priority groups including men, young people and first-time testers. Here, we use characteristics of HIVST kit recipients to investigate delivery to these priority groups during HIVST scale-up in three African countries. Methods: Kit distributors collected individual-level age, sex and testing history from all clients. These data were aggregated and analysed by country (Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe) for five distribution models: local community-based distributor (CBD: door-to-door, street and local venues), workplace distribution (WD), integration into HIV testing services (IHTS), or pubic health facilities (IPHF) and during demand creation for voluntary male medical circumcision (VMMC). Used kits were collected and re-read from CBD and IHTS recipients. Results: Between May 2015 and July 2017, 628,705 HIVST kits were distributed in Malawi (172,830), Zambia (190,787) and Zimbabwe (265,091). Community-based models, the first to be established, accounted for 519,658 (82.7%) of kits distributed, with 275,419 (53.0%) used kits returned. Subsequent model diversification delivered 54,453 (8.7%) test-kits through IHTS, 23,561 (3.7%) through VMMC, 21,183 (3.4%) through IPHF and 9850 (1.7%) through WD. Men took 294,508 (48.2%) kits, and 263,073 (43.1%) went to young people (16 to 24 years). A higher proportion of male self-testers (65,577; 22.3%) were first-time testers than women (54,096; 17.1%) with this apparent in Zimbabwe (16.2% vs. 11.4%), Zambia (25.4% vs. 17.7%) and Malawi (27.9% vs. 25.9%). The highest proportions of first-time testers were in young (16 to 24 years) and older (>50 years) men (country-ranges: 18.7% to 35.9% and 13.8% to 26.8% respectively). Most IHTS clients opted for HIVST in preference to standard HTS in each of 12 delivery sites, with those selecting HIVST having lower HIV prevalence, potentially due to self-selection. Conclusions: HIVST delivered at scale using several different models reached a high proportion of men, young people and first-time testers in Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe, some of whom may not have tested otherwise. As men and young people have limited uptake under standard facility-and community-based HIV testing, innovative male- and youth-sensitive approaches like HIVST may be essential to reaching UNAIDS fast-track targets for 2020. Keywords: HIV self-testing; HIV testing; men; adolescents; stigma; Malawi; Zambia; Zimbabwe, 1 | INTRODUCTION In 2016, 36.7 million people were living with HIV (PLHIV), with 1.8 million new HIV infections and one million HIV/AIDS-related deaths [1]. Despite substantial progress toward the [...]

Introduction: Scale-up of HIV self-testing (HIVST) will play a key role in meeting the United Nation's 90-90-90 targets. Delayed re-reading of used HIVST devices has been used by early implementation studies to validate the performance of self-test kits and to estimate HIV positivity among self-testers. We investigated the stability of results on used devices under controlled conditions to assess its potential as a quality assurance approach for HIVST scale-up. Methods: 444 OraQuick[R] HIV-1/2 rapid antibody tests were conducted using commercial plasma from two HIV-positive donors and HIV-negative plasma (high-reactive n = 148, weak-reactive n = 148 and non-reactive n = 148) and incubated them for six months under four conditions (combinations of high and low temperatures and humidity). Devices were reread daily for one week, weekly for one subsequent month and then once a month by independent readers unaware of the previous results. We used multistage transition models to investigate rates of change in device results, and between storage conditions. Results and discussion: There was a high incidence of device instability. Forty-three (29%) of 148 initially non-reactive results became false weak-reactive results. These changes were observed across all incubation conditions, the earliest on Day 4 (n = 9 kits). No initially HIV-reactive results changed to a non-reactive result. There were no significant associations between storage conditions and hazard of results transition. We observed substantial statistical agreement between independent re-readers over time (agreement range: 0.74 to 0.96). Conclusions: Delayed re-reading of used OraQuick[R] HIV-1/2 rapid antibody tests is not currently a valid methodologica approach to quality assurance and monitoring as we observed a high incidence (29%) of true non-reactive tests changing to false weak-reactive and therefore its use may overestimate true HIV positivity. Keywords: HIV self-testing; Quality assurance; Delayed re-reading; Visual stability; False reactive; Misdiagnosis; HIV testing, 1 | INTRODUCTION HIV self-testing (HIVST) is being scaled-up using a variety of distribution models throughout Africa, the Americas, Asia and Europe [1-4]. No clear monitoring and evaluation or external [...]

Background: HIV self-testing (HIVST) requires linkage to post-test services to maximise its benefits. We evaluated effect of supply-side incentivisation on linkage following community-based HIVST and evaluated time-trends in facility-based antiretroviral therapy (ART) initiations., Methods: From August 2016 to August 2017 community-based distributors (CBDs) in 38 rural Zimbabwean communities distributed HIVST door-to-door in 19-25 day campaigns. Communities were allocated (1:1) using constrained randomisation to either one-off US$50 remuneration per CBD (non-incentive arm), or US$50 plus US$0.20 incentive per client visiting mobile-outreach services (conditional-incentive arm). The primary outcome, assessed by population survey 6 weeks later, was self-reported uptake of any clinic service, analysed with random-effects logistic regression. Separately, non-randomised difference-in-differences in monthly ART initiations were analysed for three time periods (6 months baseline; HIVST campaign; 3 months after) at public clinics with (40 clinics) and without (124 clinics) HIVST distribution in catchment area., Findings: A total of 445 conditional-incentive CBDs distributed 39 205 HIVST kits (mean/CBD: 88; 95% CI: 85 to 92) and 447 non-incentive CBDs distributed 41 173 kits (mean/CBD: 93; 95% CI: 89 to 96). Survey participation was 7146/8566 (83.4%), with 3593 (50.3%) reporting self-testing including 1305 (18.3%) previously untested individuals. Use of clinic services post-HIVST was similar in conditional-incentive (1062/3698, 28.7%) and non-incentive (1075/3448, 31.2%) arms (adjusted risk ratio (aRR) 0.94, 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.03). Confirmatory testing by newly diagnosed/untreated HIVST+clients was, however, higher (conditional-incentive: 25/33, 75.8% vs non-incentive: 20/40, 50.0%: aRR: 1.59, 95% CI: 1.05 to 2.39). In total, 12 808 ART initiations occurred, with no baseline or postcampaign differences between initiation rates in HIVST versus non-HIVST clinics, but initiation rates increased from 7.31 to 9.59 initiations per month in HIVST clinics during distribution, aRR: 1.27, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.39., Conclusions: Community-based HIVST campaigns achieved high testing uptake, temporally associated with increased demand for ART. Small supply-side incentives did not affect general clinic usage but may have increased confirmatory testing for newly diagnosed HIVST positive participants., Trial Registration Number: PACTR201607001701788., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (©World Health Organization 2021. Licensee BMJ.)

Background: We compared community-led versus an established community-based HIV self-testing (HIVST) model in rural Zimbabwe using a cluster-randomised trial., Methods: Forty village groups were randomised 1:1 using restricted randomisation to community-led HIVST, where communities planned and implemented HIVST distribution for 4 weeks, or paid distribution (PD), where distributors were paid US$50 to distribute kits door-to-door over 4 weeks. Individual level primary outcomes compared household survey responses by arm 4 months post-intervention for: (1) newly diagnosed HIV during/within 4 months following HIVST distribution, (2) linkage to confirmatory testing, pre-exposure prophylaxis or voluntary medical male circumcision during/within 4 months following HIVST distribution. Participants were not masked to allocation; analysis used masked data. Trial analysis used random-effects logistic regression.Distribution costs compared: (1) community-led HIVST, (2) PD HIVST and (3) PD costs when first implemented in 2016/2017., Results: From October 2018 to August 2019, 27 812 and 36 699 HIVST kits were distributed in community-led and PD communities, respectively. We surveyed 11 150 participants and 5683 were in community-led arm. New HIV diagnosis was reported by 211 (3.7%) community-led versus 197 (3.6%) PD arm participants, adjusted OR (aOR) 1.1 (95% CI 0.72 to 1.56); 318 (25.9%) community-led arm participants linked to post-test services versus 361 (23.9%) in PD arm, aOR 1.1 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.49.Cost per HIVST kit distributed was US$6.29 and US$10.25 for PD and community-led HIVST, both lower than 2016/2017 costs for newly implemented PD (US$14.52). No social harms were reported., Conclusions: Community-led HIVST can perform as well as paid distribution, with lower costs in the first year. These costs may reduce with programme maturity/learning., Trial Registration Number: PACTR201811849455568., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (©World Health Organization 2021. Licensee BMJ.)