Accuracy of and preferences for blood-based versus oral-fluid-based HIV self-testing in Malawi: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: HIV self-testing (HIVST) can use either oral-fluid or blood-based tests. Studies have shown strong preferences for self-testing compared to facility-based services. Despite availability of low-cost blood-based HIVST options, to date, HIVST implementation in sub-Saharan Africa has largely been oral-fluid-based. We investigated whether users preferred blood-based (i.e. using blood sample derived from a finger prick) or oral fluid-based HIVST in rural and urban Malawi. METHODS: At clinics providing HIV testing services (n = 2 urban; n = 2 rural), participants completed a semi-structured questionnaire capturing sociodemographic data before choosing to test using oral-fluid-based HVST, blood-based HIVST or provider-delivered testing. They also completed a self-administered questionnaire afterwards, followed by a confirmatory test using the national algorithm then appropriate referral. We used simple and multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with preference for oral-fluid or blood-based HIVST. RESULTS: July to October 2018, N = 691 participants enrolled in this study. Given the choice, 98.4% (680/691) selected HIVST over provider-delivered testing. Of 680 opting for HIVST, 416 (61.2%) chose oral-fluid-based HIVST, 264 (38.8%) chose blood-based HIVST and 99.1% (674/680) reported their results appropriately. Self-testers who opted for blood-based HIVST were more likely to be male (50.3% men vs. 29.6% women, p < 0.001), attending an urban facility (43% urban vs. 34.6% rural, p = 0.025) and regular salary-earners (49.5% regular vs. 36.8% non-regular, p = 0.012). After adjustment, only sex was found to be associated with choice of self-test (adjusted OR 0.43 (95%CI: 0.3-0.61); p-value < 0.001). Among 264 reporting blood-based HIVST results, 11 (4.2%) were HIV-positive. Blood-based HIVST had sensitivity of 100% (95% CI: 71.5-100%) and specificity of 99.6% (95% CI: 97.6-100%), with 20 (7.6%) invalid results. Among 416 reporting oral-fluid-based HIVST results 18 (4.3%) were HIV-positive. Oral-fluid-based HIVST had sensitivity of 88.9% (95% CI: 65.3-98.6%) and specificity of 98.7% (95% CI: 97.1-99.6%), with no invalid results. CONCLUSIONS: Offering both blood-based and oral-fluid-based HIVST resulted in high uptake when compared directly with provider-delivered testing. Both types of self-testing achieved high accuracy among users provided with a pre-test demonstration beforehand. Policymakers and donors need to adequately plan and budget for the sensitisation and support needed to optimise the introduction of new quality-assured blood-based HIVST products.

Lessons learned from implementation of four HIV self-testing (HIVST) distribution models in Zambia: applying the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to understand impact of contextual factors on implementation.

BACKGROUND: Although Zambia has integrated HIV-self-testing (HIVST) into its Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) regulatory frameworks, few best practices to optimize the use of HIV self-testing to increase testing coverage have been documented. We conducted a prospective case study to understand contextual factors guiding implementation of four HIVST distribution models to inform scale-up in Zambia. METHODS: We used the qualitative case study method to explore user and provider experiences with four HIVST distribution models (two secondary distribution models in Antenatal Care (ANC) and Antiretroviral Therapy (ART) clinics, community-led, and workplace) to understand factors influencing HIVST distribution. Participants were purposefully selected based on their participation in HIVST and on their ability to provide rich contextual experience of the distribution models. Data were collected using observations (n = 31), group discussions (n = 10), and in-depth interviews (n = 77). Data were analyzed using the thematic approach and aligned to the four Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) domains. RESULTS: Implementation of the four distribution models was influenced by an interplay of outer and inner setting factors. Inadequate compensation and incentives for distributors may have contributed to distributor attrition in the community-led and workplace HIVST models. Stockouts, experienced at the start of implementation in the secondary-distribution and community-led distribution models often disrupted distribution. The existence of policy and practices aided integration of HIVST in the workplace. External factors complimented internal factors for successful implementation. For instance, despite distributor attrition leading to excessive workload, distributors often multi-tasked to keep up with demand for kits, even though distribution points were geographically widespread in the workplace, and to a less extent in the community-led models. Use of existing communication platforms such as lunchtime and safety meetings to promote and distribute kits, peers to support distributors, reduction in trips by distributors to replenish stocks, increase in monetary incentives and reorganisation of stakeholder roles proved to be good adaptations. CONCLUSION: HIVST distribution was influenced by a combination of contextual factors in variable ways. Understanding how the factors interacted in real world settings informed adaptations to implementation devised to minimize disruptions to distribution.

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.

Costs of distributing HIV self-testing kits in Eswatini through community and workplace models.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluates the implementation and running costs of an HIV self-testing (HIVST) distribution program in Eswatini. HIVST kits were delivered through community-based and workplace models using primary and secondary distribution. Primary clients could self-test onsite or offsite. This study presents total running economic costs of kit distribution per model between April 2019 and March 2020, and estimates average cost per HIVST kit distributed, per client self-tested, per client self-tested reactive, per client confirmed positive, and per client initiating antiretroviral therapy (ART). METHODS: Distribution data and follow-up phone interviews were analysed to estimate implementation outcomes. Results were presented for each step of the care cascade using best-case and worst-case scenarios. A top-down incremental cost-analysis was conducted from the provider perspective using project expenditures. Sensitivity and scenario analyses explored effects of economic and epidemiological parameters on average costs. RESULTS: Nineteen thousand one hundred fifty-five HIVST kits were distributed to 13,031 individuals over a 12-month period, averaging 1.5 kits per recipient. 83% and 17% of kits were distributed via the community and workplace models, respectively. Clients reached via the workplace model were less likely to opt for onsite testing than clients in the community model (8% vs 29%). 6% of onsite workplace testers tested reactive compared to 2% of onsite community testers. Best-case scenario estimated 17,458 (91%) clients self-tested, 633 (4%) received reactive-test results, 606 (96%) linked to confirmatory testing, and 505 (83%) initiated ART. Personnel and HIVST kits represented 60% and 32% of total costs, respectively. Average costs were: per kit distributed US$17.23, per client tested US$18.91, per client with a reactive test US$521.54, per client confirmed positive US$550.83, and per client initiating ART US$708.60. Lower rates for testing, reactivity, and linkage to care in the worst-case scenario resulted in higher average costs along the treatment cascade. CONCLUSION: This study fills a significant evidence gap regarding costs of HIVST provision along the client care cascade in Eswatini. Workplace and community-based distribution of HIVST accompanied with effective linkage to care strategies can support countries to reach cascade objectives.

Provider and female client economic costs of integrated sexual and reproductive health and HIV services in Zimbabwe.

A retrospective facility-based costing study was undertaken to estimate the comparative cost per visit of five integrated sexual and reproductive health and HIV (human immuno-deficiency virus) services (provider perspective) within five clinic sites. These five clinics were part of four service delivery models: Non-governmental-organisation (NGO) directly managed model (Chitungwiza and New Africa House sites), NGO partner managed site (Mutare site), private-public-partnership (PPP) model (Chitungwiza Profam Clinic), and NGO directly managed outreach (operating from New Africa House site. In addition client cost exit interviews (client perspective) were conducted among 856 female clients exiting integrated services at three of the sites. Our costing approach involved first a facility bottom-up costing exercise (February to April 2015), conducted to quantify and value each resource input required to provide individual SRH and HIV services. Secondly overhead financial expenditures were allocated top-down from central office to sites and then respective integrated service based on pre-defined allocation factors derived from both the site facility observations and programme data for the prior 12 months. Costs were assessed in 2015 United States dollars (USD). Costs were assessed for HIV testing and counselling, screening and treatment of sexually transmitted infections, tuberculosis screening with smear microscopy, family planning, and cervical cancer screening and treatment employing visual inspection with acetic acid and cervicography and cryotherapy. Variability in costs per visit was evident across the models being highest for cervical cancer screening and cryotherapy (range: US$6.98-US$49.66). HIV testing and counselling showed least variability (range; US$10.96-US$16.28). In general the PPP model offered integrated services at the lowest unit costs whereas the partner managed site was highest. Significant client costs remain despite availability of integrated sexual and reproductive health and HIV services free of charge in our Zimbabwe study setting. Situating services closer to communities, incentives, transport reimbursements, reducing waiting times and co-location of sexual and reproductive health and HIV services may help minimise impact of client costs.

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.

Preferences for oral-fluid-based or blood-based HIV self-testing and provider-delivered testing: an observational study among different populations in Zimbabwe.

BACKGROUND: There is limited data on client preferences for different HIV self-testing (HIVST) and provider-delivered testing options and associated factors. We explored client preferences for oral-fluid-based self-testing (OFBST), blood-based self-testing (BBST) and provider-delivered blood-based testing (PDBBT) among different populations. METHODS: At clinics providing HIV testing services to general populations (1 urban, 1 rural clinic), men seeking voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC, 1 clinic), and female sex workers (FSW, 1 clinic), clients had the option to test using OFBST, BBST or PDBBT. A pre-test questionnaire collected information on demographics and testing history. Two weeks after collecting a self-test kit, participants responded to a questionnaire. We used logistic regression to determine predictors of choices. We also conducted 20 in-depth interviews to contextualise quantitative findings. RESULTS: May to June 2019, we recruited 1244 participants of whom 249 (20%), 251 (20%), 244 (20%) and 500 (40%) were attending urban general, rural, VMMC and FSW clinics, respectively. Half (n = 619, 50%) chose OFBST, 440 (35%) and 185 (15%) chose BBST and PDBBT, respectively. In multivariable analysis comparing those choosing HIVST (OFBST and BBST combined) versus not, those who had never married aOR 0.57 (95% CI 0.34-0.93) and those previously married aOR0.56 (0.34-0.93) were less likely versus married participants to choose HIVST. HIVST preference increased with education, aOR 2.00 (1.28-3.13), 2.55 (1.28-5.07), 2.76 (1.48-5.14) for ordinary, advanced and tertiary education, respectively versus none/primary education. HIVST preference decreased with age aOR 0.97 (0.96-0.99). Urban participants were more likely than rural ones to choose HIVST, aOR 9.77 (5.47-17.41), 3.38 (2.03-5.62) and 2.23 (1.38-3.61) for FSW, urban general and VMMC clients, respectively. Comparing those choosing OFBST with those choosing BBST, less literate participants were less likely to choose oral fluid tests, aOR 0.29 (0.09-0.92). CONCLUSIONS: Most testing clients opted for OFBST, followed by BBST and lastly, PDBBT. Those who self-assessed as less healthy were more likely to opt for PDBBT which likely facilitated linkage. Results show importance of continued provision of all strategies in order to meet needs of different populations, and may be useful to inform both HIVST kit stock projections and tailoring of HIVST programs to meet the needs of different populations.

Secondary distribution of HIV self-test kits by HIV index and antenatal care clients: implementation and costing results from the STAR Initiative in South Africa.

BACKGROUND: Partner-delivered HIV self-testing kits has previously been highlighted as a safe, acceptable and effective approach to reach men. However, less is known about its real-world implementation in reaching partners of people living with HIV. We evaluated programmatic implementation of partner-delivered self-testing through antenatal care (ANC) attendees and people newly diagnosed with HIV by assessing use, positivity, linkage and cost per kit distributed. METHODS: Between April 2018 and December 2019, antenatal care (ANC) clinic attendees and people or those newly diagnosed with HIV clients across twelve clinics in three cities in South Africa were given HIVST kits (OraQuick Rapid HIV-1/2 Antibody Test, OraSure Technologies) to distribute to their sexual partners. A follow-up telephonic survey was administered to all prior consenting clients who were successfully reached by telephone to assess primary outcomes. Incremental economic costs of the implementation were estimated from the provider's perspective. RESULTS: Fourteen thousand four hundred seventy-three HIVST kits were distributed - 10,319 (71%) to ANC clients for their male partner and 29% to people newly diagnosed with HIV for their partners. Of the 4,235 ANC clients successfully followed-up, 82.1% (3,475) reportedly offered HIVST kits to their male partner with 98.1% (3,409) accepting and 97.6% (3,328) using the kit. Among ANC partners self-testing, 159 (4.8%) reported reactive HIVST results, of which 127 (79.9%) received further testing; 116 (91.3%) were diagnosed with HIV and 114 (98.3%) initiated antiretroviral therapy (ART). Of the 1,649 people newly diagnosed with HIV successfully followed-up; 1,312 (79.6%) reportedly offered HIVST kits to their partners with 95.8% (1,257) of the partners accepting and 95.9% (1,206) reported that their partners used the kit. Among these index partners, 297 (24.6%) reported reactive HIVST results of which 261 (87.9%) received further testing; 260 (99.6%) were diagnosed with HIV and 258 (99.2%) initiated ART. The average cost per HIVST distributed in the three cities was US$7.90, US$11.98, and US$14.81, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Partner-delivered HIVST in real world implementation was able to affordably reach many male partners of ANC attendees and index partners of people newly diagnosed with HIV in South Africa. Given recent COVID-19 related restrictions, partner-delivered HIVST provides an important strategy to maintain essential testing services.

Sensitivity and specificity of OraQuick® HIV self-test compared to a 4th generation laboratory reference standard algorithm in urban and rural Zambia.

BACKGROUND: HIV self-testing (HIVST) has the potential to increase coverage of HIV testing, but concerns exist about intended users' ability to correctly perform and interpret tests, especially in poor communities with low literacy rates. We assessed the clinical performance of the 2016 prototype OraQuick® HIV Self-Test in rural and urban communities in Zambia to assess the sensitivity and specificity of the test compared to the national HIV rapid diagnostic test (RDT) algorithm and a laboratory reference standard using 4th generation enzyme immunoassays and HIV RNA detection. METHODS: Participants were recruited from randomly selected rural and urban households and one urban health facility between May 2016 and June 2017. Participants received a brief demonstration of the self-test, and then self-tested without further assistance. The research team re-read the self-test, repeated the self-test, drew blood for the laboratory reference, and conducted RDTs following the national HIV testing algorithm (Determine™ HIV1/2 (Alere) confirmed using Unigold™ HIV1/2 (Trinity Biotech)). Selected participants (N = 85) were videotaped whilst conducting the testing to observe common errors. RESULTS: Initial piloting showed that written instructions alone were inadequate, and a demonstration of self-test use was required. Of 2,566 self-test users, 2,557 (99.6%) were able to interpret their result. Of participants who were videoed 75/84 (89.3%) completed all steps of the procedure correctly. Agreement between the user-read result and the researcher-read result was 99.1%. Compared to the RDT algorithm, user-conducted HIVST was 94.1% sensitive (95%CI: 90.2-96.7) and 99.7% specific (95%CI: 99.3-99.9). Compared to the laboratory reference, both user-conducted HIVST (sensitivity 87.5%, 95%CI: 82.70-91.3; specificity 99.7%, 95%CI: 99.4-99.9) and the national RDT algorithm (sensitivity 93.4%, 95%CI: 89.7-96.1%; specificity 100% (95%CI: 99.8-100%) had considerably lower sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: Self-testers in Zambia who used OraQuick® HIV Self-Test achieved reasonable clinical performance compared to the national RDT algorithm. However, sensitivity of the self-test was reduced compared to a laboratory reference standard, as was the national RDT algorithm. In-person demonstration, along with the written manufacturer instructions, was needed to obtain accurate results. Programmes introducing self-care diagnostics should pilot and optimise support materials to ensure they are appropriately adapted to context.

"You have a self-testing method that preserves privacy so how come you cannot give us treatment that does too?" Exploring the reasoning among young people about linkage to prevention, care and treatment after HIV self-testing in Southern Malawi.

BACKGROUND: Young people, aged 16-24, in southern Malawi have high uptake of HIV self-testing (HIVST) but low rates of linking to services following HIVST, especially in comparison, to older generations. The study aim is to explore the barriers and facilitators to linkage for HIV prevention and care following uptake of HIV self-testing among young Malawians. METHODS: We used qualitative methods. Young people aged 16-24 who had received HIVST; community-based distribution agents (CBDAs) and health care workers from the linked facilities were purposively sampled from two villages in rural southern Malawi. RESULTS: We conducted in-depth interviews with thirteen young people (9 female) and held four focus groups with 28 healthcare workers and CBDAs. Young people strongly felt the social consequences associated with inadvertent disclosure of HIV sero-status were a significant deterrent to linkage at their stage in life. They also felt communication on testing benefits and the referral process after testing was poor. In contrast, they valued encouragement from those they trusted, other's positive treatment experiences and having a "strength of mind". CBDAs were important facilitators for young people as they are able to foster a trusting relationship and had more understanding of the factors which prevented young people from linking following HIVST than the healthcare workers. Young people noted contextual barriers to linkage, for example, being seen on the road to the healthcare centre, but also societal gendered barriers. For example, young females and younger adolescents were less likely to have the financial independence to link to services whilst young males (aged 19-24) had the finances but lacked a supportive network to encourage linkage following testing. Overall, it was felt that the primary "responsibility" for linking to formal healthcare following self-testing is shouldered by the young person and not the healthcare system. CONCLUSIONS: Young people are happy to self-test for HIV but faced barriers to link to services following a self-test. Potential interventions for improving linkage suggested by this analysis include the establishment of youth-friendly linkage services, enhanced lines of communication between young people and healthcare providers and prioritising linkage for future interventions when targeting young people following HIVST.

Did you hear about HIV self-testing? HIV self-testing awareness after community-based HIVST distribution in rural Zimbabwe.

BACKGROUND: Several trials of community-based HIV self-testing (HIVST) provide evidence on the acceptability and feasibility of campaign-style distribution to reach first-time testers, men and adolescents. However, we do not know how many remain unaware of HIVST after distribution campaigns, and who these individuals are. Here we look at factors associated with never having heard of HIVST after community-based campaign-style HIVST distribution in rural Zimbabwe between September 2016 and July 2017. METHODS: Analysis of representative population-based trial survey data collected from 7146 individuals following community-based HIVST distribution to households was conducted. Factors associated with having never heard of HIVST were determined using multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression adjusted for clustered design. RESULTS: Among survey participants, 1308 (18.3%) self-reported having never heard of HIVST. Individuals who were between 20 and 60 years old {20-29 years: [aOR = 0.74, 95% CI (0.58-0.95)], 30-39 years: [aOR = 0.56, 95% CI (0.42-0.74)], 40-49 years: [aOR = 0.50, 95% CI (0.36-0.68)], 50-59 years [aOR = 0.58, 95% CI (0.42-0.82)]}, who had attained at least ordinary level education [aOR = 0.51, 95% CI (0.34-0.76)], and who had an HIV test before [aOR = 0.30, 95% CI (0.25-0.37)] were less likely to have never heard of HIVST compared with individuals who were between 16 and 19 years old, who had a lower educational level and who had never tested for HIV before, respectively. In addition, non-household heads or household head representatives [aOR = 1.21, 95% CI (1.01-1.45)] were more likely to report never having heard of HIVST compared to household head and representatives. CONCLUSIONS: Around one fifth of survey participants remain unaware of HIVST even after an intensive community-based door-to-door HIVST distribution. Of note, those least likely to have heard of self-testing were younger, less educated and less likely to have tested previously. Household heads appear to play an important role in granting or denying access to self-testing to other household members during door-to-door distribution. Differentiated distribution models are needed to ensure access to all. Trial registration PACTR, PACTR201607001701788. Registered 29 June 2016, https://pactr.samrc.ac.za/ PACTR201607001701788.

Effect of door-to-door distribution of HIV self-testing kits on HIV testing and antiretroviral therapy initiation: a cluster randomised trial in Malawi.

INTRODUCTION: Reaching high coverage of HIV testing remains essential for HIV diagnosis, treatment and prevention. We evaluated the effectiveness and safety of door-to-door distribution of HIV self-testing (HIVST) kits in rural Malawi. METHODS: This cluster randomised trial, conducted between September 2016 and January 2018, used restricted 1:1 randomisation to allocate 22 health facilities and their defined areas to door-to-door HIVST alongside the standard of care (SOC) or the SOC alone. The study population included residents (≥16 years). HIVST kits were provided door-to-door by community-based distribution agents (CBDAs) for at least 12 months. The primary outcome was recent HIV testing (in the last 12 months) measured through an endline survey. Secondary outcomes were lifetime HIV testing and cumulative 16-month antiretroviral therapy (ART) initiations, which were captured at health facilities. Social harms were reported through community reporting systems. Analysis compared cluster-level outcomes by arm. RESULTS: Overall, 203 CBDAs distributed 273 729 HIVST kits. The endline survey included 2582 participants in 11 HIVST clusters and 2908 participants in 11 SOC clusters. Recent testing was higher in the HIVST arm (68.5%, 1768/2582) than the SOC arm (48.9%, 1422/2908), with adjusted risk difference (RD) of 16.1% (95% CI 6.5% to 25.7%). Lifetime testing was also higher in the HIVST arm (86.9%, 2243/2582) compared with the SOC arm (78.5%, 2283/2908; adjusted RD 6.3%, 95% CI 2.3% to 10.3%). Differences were most pronounced for adolescents aged 16-19 years (adjusted RD 18.6%, 95% CI 7.3% to 29.9%) and men (adjusted RD 10.2%, 95% CI 3.1% to 17.2%). Cumulative incidence of ART initiation was 1187.2 and 909.0 per 100 000 population in the HIVST and SOC arms, respectively (adjusted RD 309.1, 95% CI -95.5 to 713.7). Self-reported HIVST use was 42.5% (1097/2582), with minimal social harms reported. CONCLUSION: Door-to-door HIVST increased recent and lifetime testing at population level and showed high safety, underscoring potential for HIVST to contribute to HIV elimination goals in priority settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02718274.

Does community-based distribution of HIV self-tests increase uptake of HIV testing? Results of pair-matched cluster randomised trial in Zambia.

OBJECTIVES: Ending HIV by 2030 is a global priority. Achieving this requires alternative HIV testing strategies, such as HIV self-testing (HIVST) to reach all individuals with HIV testing services (HTS). We present the results of a trial evaluating the impact of community-based distribution of HIVST in community and facility settings on the uptake of HTS in rural and urban Zambia. DESIGN: Pair-matched cluster randomised trial. METHODS: In catchment areas of government health facilities, OraQuick HIVST kits were distributed by community-based distributors (CBDs) over 12 months in 2016-2017. Within matched pairs, clusters were randomised to receive the HIVST intervention or standard of care (SOC). Individuals aged ≥16 years were eligible for HIVST. Within communities, CBDs offered HIVST in high traffic areas, door to door and at healthcare facilities. The primary outcome was self-reported recent testing within the previous 12 months measured using a population-based survey. RESULTS: In six intervention clusters (population 148 541), 60 CBDs distributed 65 585 HIVST kits. A recent test was reported by 66% (1622/2465) in the intervention arm compared with 60% (1456/2429) in SOC arm (adjusted risk ratio 1.08, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.24; p=0.15). Uptake of the HIVST intervention was low: 24% of respondents in the intervention arm (585/2493) used an HIVST kit in the previous 12 months. No social harms were identified during implementation. CONCLUSION: Despite distributing a large number of HIVST kits, we found no evidence that this community-based HIVST distribution intervention increased HTS uptake. Other models of HIVST distribution, including secondary distribution and community-designed distribution models, provide alternative strategies to reach target populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT02793804).

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.

The cost and intermediary cost-effectiveness of oral HIV self-test kit distribution across 11 distribution models in South Africa.

BACKGROUND: Countries around the world seek innovative ways of closing their remaining gaps towards the target of 95% of people living with HIV (PLHIV) knowing their status by 2030. Offering kits allowing HIV self-testing (HIVST) in private might help close these gaps. METHODS: We analysed the cost, use and linkage to onward care of 11 HIVST kit distribution models alongside the Self-Testing AfRica Initiative's distribution of 2.2 million HIVST kits in South Africa in 2018/2019. Outcomes were based on telephonic surveys of 4% of recipients; costs on a combination of micro-costing, time-and-motion and expenditure analysis. Costs were calculated from the provider perspective in 2019 US$, as incremental costs in integrated and full costs in standalone models. RESULTS: HIV positivity among kit recipients was 4%-23%, with most models achieving 5%-6%. Linkage to confirmatory testing and antiretroviral therapy (ART) initiation for those screening positive was 19%-78% and 2%-72% across models. Average costs per HIVST kit distributed varied between $4.87 (sex worker model) and $18.07 (mobile integration model), with differences largely driven by kit volumes. HIVST kit costs (at $2.88 per kit) and personnel costs were the largest cost items throughout. Average costs per outcome increased along the care cascade, with the sex worker network model being the most cost-effective model across metrics used (cost per kit distributed/recipient screening positive/confirmed positive/initiating ART). Cost per person confirmed positive for HIVST was higher than standard HIV testing. CONCLUSION: HIV self-test distribution models in South Africa varied widely along four characteristics: distribution volume, HIV positivity, linkage to care and cost. Volume was highest in models that targeted public spaces with high footfall (flexible community, fixed point and transport hub distribution), followed by workplace models. Transport hub, workplace and sex worker models distributed kits in the least costly way. Distribution via index cases at facility as well as sex worker network distribution identified the highest number of PLHIV at lowest cost.

Comparison of community-led distribution of HIV self-tests kits with distribution by paid distributors: a cluster randomised trial in rural Zimbabwean communities.

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.

Costs of integrating HIV self-testing in public health facilities in Malawi, South Africa, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

INTRODUCTION: As countries approach the UNAIDS 95-95-95 targets, there is a need for innovative and cost-saving HIV testing approaches that can increase testing coverage in hard-to-reach populations. The HIV Self-Testing Africa-Initiative distributed HIV self-test (HIVST) kits using unincentivised HIV testing counsellors across 31 public facilities in Malawi, South Africa, Zambia and Zimbabwe. HIVST was distributed either through secondary (partner's use) distribution alone or primary (own use) and secondary distribution approaches. METHODS: We evaluated the costs of adding HIVST to existing HIV testing from the providers' perspective in the 31 public health facilities across the four countries between 2018 and 2019. We combined expenditure analysis and bottom-up costing approaches. We also carried out time-and-motion studies on the counsellors to estimate the human resource costs of introducing and demonstrating how to use HIVST for primary and secondary use. RESULTS: A total of 41 720 kits were distributed during the analysis period, ranging from 1254 in Zimbabwe to 27 678 in Zambia. The cost per kit distributed through the primary distribution approach was $4.27 in Zambia and $9.24 in Zimbabwe. The cost per kit distributed through the secondary distribution approach ranged from $6.46 in Zambia to $13.42 in South Africa, with a wider variation in the average cost at facility-level. From the time-and-motion observations, the counsellors spent between 20% and 44% of the observed workday on HIVST. Overall, personnel and test kit costs were the main cost drivers. CONCLUSION: The average costs of distributing HIVST kits were comparable across the four countries in our analysis despite wide cost variability within countries. We recommend context-specific exploration of potential efficiency gains from these facility-level cost variations and demand creation activities to ensure continued affordability at scale.

Modelling costs of community-based HIV self-testing programmes in Southern Africa at scale: an econometric cost function analysis across five countries.

BACKGROUND: Following success demonstrated with the HIV Self-Testing AfRica Initiative, HIV self-testing (HIVST) is being added to national HIV testing strategies in Southern Africa. An analysis of the costs of scaling up HIVST is needed to inform national plans, but there is a dearth of evidence on methods for forecasting costs at scale from pilot projects. Econometric cost functions (ECFs) apply statistical inference to predict costs; however, we often do not have the luxury of collecting large amounts of location-specific data. We fit an ECF to identify key drivers of costs, then use a simpler model to guide cost projections at scale. METHODS: We estimated the full economic costs of community-based HIVST distribution in 92 locales across Malawi, Zambia, Zimbabwe, South Africa and Lesotho between June 2016 and June 2019. We fitted a cost function with determinants related to scale, locales organisational and environmental characteristics, target populations, and per capita Growth Domestic Product (GDP). We used models differing in data intensity to predict costs at scale. We compared predicted estimates with scale-up costs in Lesotho observed over a 2-year period. RESULTS: The scale of distribution, type of community-based intervention, percentage of kits distributed to men, distance from implementer's warehouse and per capita GDP predicted average costs per HIVST kit distributed. Our model simplification approach showed that a parsimonious model could predict costs without losing accuracy. Overall, ECF showed a good predictive capacity, that is, forecast costs were close to observed costs. However, at larger scale, variations of programme efficiency over time (number of kits distributed per agent monthly) could potentially influence cost predictions. DISCUSSION: Our empirical cost function can inform community-based HIVST scale-up in Southern African countries. Our findings suggest that a parsimonious ECF can be used to forecast costs at scale in the context of financial planning and budgeting.

The cost effectiveness and optimal configuration of HIV self-test distribution in South Africa: a model analysis.

BACKGROUND: HIV self-testing (HIVST) has been shown to be acceptable, feasible and effective in increasing HIV testing uptake. Novel testing strategies are critical to achieving the UNAIDS target of 95% HIV-positive diagnosis by 2025 in South Africa and globally. METHODS: We modelled the impact of six HIVST kit distribution modalities (community fixed-point, taxi ranks, workplace, partners of primary healthcare (PHC) antiretroviral therapy (ART) patients), partners of pregnant women, primary PHC distribution) in South Africa over 20 years (2020-2039), using data collected alongside the Self-Testing AfRica Initiative. We modelled two annual distribution scenarios: (A) 1 million HIVST kits (current) or (B) up to 6.7 million kits. Incremental economic costs (2019 US$) were estimated from the provider perspective; assumptions on uptake and screening positivity were based on surveys of a subset of kit recipients and modelled using the Thembisa model. Cost-effectiveness of each distribution modality compared with the status-quo distribution configuration was estimated as cost per life year saved (estimated from life years lost due to AIDS) and optimised using a fractional factorial design. RESULTS: The largest impact resulted from secondary HIVST distribution to partners of ART patients at PHC (life years saved (LYS): 119 000 (scenario A); 393 000 (scenario B)). However, it was one of the least cost-effective modalities (A: $1394/LYS; B: $4162/LYS). Workplace distribution was cost-saving ($52-$76 million) and predicted to have a moderate epidemic impact (A: 40 000 LYS; B: 156 000 LYS). An optimised scale-up to 6.7 million tests would result in an almost threefold increase in LYS compared with a scale-up of status-quo distribution (216 000 vs 75 000 LYS). CONCLUSION: Optimisation-informed distribution has the potential to vastly improve the impact of HIVST. Using this approach, HIVST can play a key role in improving the long-term health impact of investment in HIVST.

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.