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.

Cost-effectiveness of voluntary medical male circumcision for HIV prevention across sub-Saharan Africa: results from five independent models.

BACKGROUND: Voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC) has been a recommended HIV prevention strategy in sub-Saharan Africa since 2007, particularly in countries with high HIV prevalence. However, given the scale-up of antiretroviral therapy programmes, it is not clear whether VMMC still represents a cost-effective use of scarce HIV programme resources. METHODS: Using five existing well described HIV mathematical models, we compared continuation of VMMC for 5 years in men aged 15 years and older to no further VMMC in South Africa, Malawi, and Zimbabwe and across a range of setting scenarios in sub-Saharan Africa. Outputs were based on a 50-year time horizon, VMMC cost was assumed to be US$90, and a cost-effectiveness threshold of US$500 was used. FINDINGS: In South Africa and Malawi, the continuation of VMMC for 5 years resulted in cost savings and health benefits (infections and disability-adjusted life-years averted) according to all models. Of the two models modelling Zimbabwe, the continuation of VMMC for 5 years resulted in cost savings and health benefits by one model but was not as cost-effective according to the other model. Continuation of VMMC was cost-effective in 68% of setting scenarios across sub-Saharan Africa. VMMC was more likely to be cost-effective in modelled settings with higher HIV incidence; VMMC was cost-effective in 62% of settings with HIV incidence of less than 0·1 per 100 person-years in men aged 15-49 years, increasing to 95% with HIV incidence greater than 1·0 per 100 person-years. INTERPRETATION: VMMC remains a cost-effective, often cost-saving, prevention intervention in sub-Saharan Africa for at least the next 5 years. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for the HIV Modelling Consortium.

Cost-effectiveness of easy-access, risk-informed oral pre-exposure prophylaxis in HIV epidemics in sub-Saharan Africa: a modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Approaches that allow easy access to pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), such as over-the-counter provision at pharmacies, could facilitate risk-informed PrEP use and lead to lower HIV incidence, but their cost-effectiveness is unknown. We aimed to evaluate conditions under which risk-informed PrEP use is cost-effective. METHODS: We applied a mathematical model of HIV transmission to simulate 3000 setting-scenarios reflecting a range of epidemiological characteristics of communities in sub-Saharan Africa. The prevalence of HIV viral load greater than 1000 copies per mL among all adults (HIV positive and negative) varied from 1·1% to 7·4% (90% range). We hypothesised that if PrEP was made easily available without restriction and with education regarding its use, women and men would use PrEP, with sufficient daily adherence, during so-called seasons of risk (ie, periods in which individuals are at risk of acquiring infection). We refer to this as risk-informed PrEP. For each setting-scenario, we considered the situation in mid-2021 and performed a pairwise comparison of the outcomes of two policies: immediate PrEP scale-up and then continuation for 50 years, and no PrEP. We estimated the relationship between epidemic and programme characteristics and cost-effectiveness of PrEP availability to all during seasons of risk. For our base-case analysis, we assumed a 3-monthly PrEP cost of US$29 (drug $11, HIV test $4, and $14 for additional costs necessary to facilitate education and access), a cost-effectiveness threshold of $500 per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) averted, an annual discount rate of 3%, and a time horizon of 50 years. In sensitivity analyses, we considered a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100 per DALY averted, a discount rate of 7% per annum, the use of PrEP outside of seasons of risk, and reduced uptake of risk-informed PrEP. FINDINGS: In the context of PrEP scale-up such that 66% (90% range across setting-scenarios 46-81) of HIV-negative people with at least one non-primary condomless sex partner take PrEP in any given period, resulting in 2·6% (0·9-6·0) of all HIV negative adults taking PrEP at any given time, risk-informed PrEP was predicted to reduce HIV incidence by 49% (23-78) over 50 years compared with no PrEP. PrEP was cost-effective in 71% of all setting-scenarios, and cost-effective in 76% of setting-scenarios with prevalence of HIV viral load greater than 1000 copies per mL among all adults higher than 2%. In sensitivity analyses with a $100 per DALY averted cost-effectiveness threshold, a 7% per year discount rate, or with PrEP use that was less well risk-informed than in our base case, PrEP was less likely to be cost-effective, but generally remained cost-effective if the prevalence of HIV viral load greater than 1000 copies per mL among all adults was higher than 3%. In sensitivity analyses based on additional setting-scenarios in which risk-informed PrEP was less extensively used, the HIV incidence reduction was smaller, but the cost-effectiveness of risk-informed PrEP was undiminished. INTERPRETATION: Under the assumption that making PrEP easily accessible for all adults in sub-Saharan Africa in the context of community education leads to risk-informed use, PrEP is likely to be cost-effective in settings with prevalence of HIV viral load greater than 1000 copies per mL among all adults higher than 2%, suggesting the need for implementation of such approaches, with ongoing evaluation. FUNDING: US Agency for International Development, US President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

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.

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.

Optimizing HIV retesting during pregnancy and postpartum in four countries: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

INTRODUCTION: HIV retesting during late pregnancy and breastfeeding can help detect new maternal infections and prevent mother-to-child HIV transmission (MTCT), but the optimal timing and cost-effectiveness of maternal retesting remain uncertain. METHODS: We constructed deterministic models to assess the health and economic impact of maternal HIV retesting on a hypothetical population of pregnant women, following initial testing in pregnancy, on MTCT in four countries: South Africa and Kenya (high/intermediate HIV prevalence), and Colombia and Ukraine (low HIV prevalence). We evaluated six scenarios with varying retesting frequencies from late in antenatal care (ANC) through nine months postpartum. We compared strategies using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) over a 20-year time horizon using country-specific thresholds. RESULTS: We found maternal retesting once in late ANC with catch-up testing through six weeks postpartum was cost-effective in Kenya (ICER = $166 per DALY averted) and South Africa (ICER=$289 per DALY averted). This strategy prevented 19% (Kenya) and 12% (South Africa) of infant HIV infections. Adding one or two additional retests postpartum provided smaller benefits (1 to 2 percentage point increase in infections averted versus one retest). Adding three retests during the postpartum period averted additional infections (1 to 3 percentage point increase in infections averted versus one retest) but ICERs ($7639 and in Kenya and $11 985 in South Africa) greatly exceeded the cost-effectiveness thresholds. In Colombia and Ukraine, all retesting strategies exceeded the cost-effectiveness threshold and prevented few infant infections (up to 31 and 5 infections, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In high HIV burden settings with MTCT rates similar to those seen in Kenya and South Africa, HIV retesting once in late ANC, with subsequent intervention, is the most cost-effective strategy for preventing infant HIV infections. In these settings, two HIV retests postpartum marginally reduced MTCT and were less costly than adding three retests. Retesting in low-burden settings with MTCT rates similar to Colombia and Ukraine was not cost-effective at any time point due to very low HIV prevalence and limited breastfeeding.

Cost-effectiveness of dual maternal HIV and syphilis testing strategies in high and low HIV prevalence countries: a modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Dual HIV and syphilis testing might help to prevent mother-to-child transmission (MTCT) of HIV and syphilis through increased case detection and treatment. We aimed to model and assess the cost-effectiveness of dual testing during antenatal care in four countries with varying HIV and syphilis prevalence. METHODS: In this modelling study, we developed Markov models of HIV and syphilis in pregnant women to estimate costs and infant health outcomes of maternal testing at the first antenatal care visit with individual HIV and syphilis tests (base case) and at the first antenatal care visit with a dual rapid diagnostic test (scenario one). We additionally evaluated retesting during late antenatal care and at delivery with either individual tests (scenario two) or a dual rapid diagnosis test (scenario three). We modelled four countries: South Africa, Kenya, Colombia, and Ukraine. Strategies with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) less than the country-specific cost-effectiveness threshold (US$500 in Kenya, $750 in South Africa, $3000 in Colombia, and $1000 in Ukraine) per disability-adjusted life-year averted were considered cost-effective. FINDINGS: Routinely offering testing at the first antenatal care visit with a dual rapid diagnosis test was cost-saving compared with the base case in all four countries (ICER: -$26 in Kenya,-$559 in South Africa, -$844 in Colombia, and -$454 in Ukraine). Retesting during late antenatal care with a dual rapid diagnostic test (scenario three) was cost-effective compared with scenario one in all four countries (ICER: $270 in Kenya, $260 in South Africa, $2207 in Colombia, and $205 in Ukraine). INTERPRETATION: Incorporating dual rapid diagnostic tests in antenatal care can be cost-saving across countries with varying HIV prevalence. Countries should consider incorporating dual HIV and syphilis rapid diagnostic tests as the first test in antenatal care to support efforts to eliminate MTCT of HIV and syphilis. FUNDING: WHO, US Agency for International Development, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.