Cost of SARS-CoV-2 self-test distribution programmes by different modalities: a micro-costing study in five countries (Brazil, Georgia, Malaysia, Ethiopia and the Philippines).

OBJECTIVE: Diagnostic testing is an important tool to combat the COVID-19 pandemic, yet access to and uptake of testing vary widely 3 years into the pandemic. The WHO recommends the use of COVID-19 self-testing as an option to help expand testing access. We aimed to calculate the cost of providing COVID-19 self-testing across countries and distribution modalities. DESIGN: We estimated economic costs from the provider perspective to calculate the total cost and the cost per self-test kit distributed for three scenarios that differed by costing period (pilot, annual), the number of tests distributed (actual, planned, scaled assuming an epidemic peak) and self-test kit costs (pilot purchase price, 50% reduction). SETTING: We used data collected between August and December 2022 in Brazil, Georgia, Malaysia, Ethiopia and the Philippines from pilot implementation studies designed to provide COVID-19 self-tests in a variety of settings-namely, workplace and healthcare facilities. RESULTS: Across all five countries, 173 000 kits were distributed during pilot implementation with the cost/test distributed ranging from $2.44 to $12.78. The cost/self-test kit distributed was lowest in the scenario that assumed implementation over a longer period (year), with higher test demand (peak) and a test kit price reduction of 50% ($1.04-3.07). Across all countries and scenarios, test procurement occupied the greatest proportion of costs: 58-87% for countries with off-site self-testing (outside the workplace, for example, home) and 15-50% for countries with on-site self-testing (at the workplace). Staffing was the next key cost driver, particularly for distribution modalities that had on-site self-testing (29-35%) versus off-site self-testing (7-27%). CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that it is likely to cost between $2.44 and $12.78 per test to distribute COVID-19 self-tests across common settings in five heterogeneous countries. Cost-effectiveness analyses using these results will allow policymakers to make informed decisions on optimally scaling up COVID-19 self-test distribution programmes across diverse settings and evolving needs.

Preferences and uptake of home-based HIV self-testing for maternal retesting in Kenya.

Objective: To compare preferences, uptake, and cofactors for unassisted home-based oral self-testing (HB-HIVST) versus clinic-based rapid diagnostic blood tests (CB-RDT) for maternal HIV retesting. Design: Prospective cohort. Methods: Between November 2017 and June 2019, HIV-negative pregnant Kenyan women receiving antenatal care were enrolled and given a choice to retest with HB-HIVST or CB-RDT. Women were asked to retest between 36 weeks gestation and 1 week post-delivery if the last HIV test was <24 weeks gestation or at 6 weeks postpartum if ≥24 weeks gestation, and self-report on retesting at a 14 week postpartum. Results: Overall, 994 women enrolled and 33% (n=330) selected HB-HIVST. HB-HIVST was selected because it was private (68%), convenient (63%), and offered flexibility in timing of retesting (63%), whereas CB-RDT was selected due to trust of providers to administer the test (77%) and convenience of clinic testing (64%). Among 905 women who reported retesting at follow-up, 135 (15%) used HB-HIVST. Most (94%) who selected CB-RDT retested with this strategy, compared to 39% who selected HB-HIVST retesting with HB-HIVST. HB-HIVST retesting was more common among women with higher household income and those who may have been unable to test during pregnancy (both retested postpartum and delivered <37 weeks gestation) and less common among women who were depressed. Most women said they would retest in the future using the test selected at enrollment (99% HB-HIVST; 93% CB-RDT-RDT). Conclusions: While most women preferred CB-RDT for maternal retesting, HB-HIVST was acceptable and feasible and may increase retesting coverage and partner testing.

Clinical accuracy of instrument-based SARS-CoV-2 antigen diagnostic tests: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, antigen diagnostic tests were frequently used for screening, triage, and diagnosis. Novel instrument-based antigen tests (iAg tests) hold the promise of outperforming their instrument-free, visually-read counterparts. Here, we provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of the SARS-CoV-2 iAg tests' clinical accuracy. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), Web of Science, medRxiv, and bioRxiv for articles published before November 7th, 2022, evaluating the accuracy of iAg tests for SARS-CoV-2 detection. We performed a random effects meta-analysis to estimate sensitivity and specificity and used the QUADAS-2 tool to assess study quality and risk of bias. Sub-group analysis was conducted based on Ct value range, IFU-conformity, age, symptom presence and duration, and the variant of concern. RESULTS: We screened the titles and abstracts of 20,431 articles and included 114 publications that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Additionally, we incorporated three articles sourced from the FIND website, totaling 117 studies encompassing 95,181 individuals, which evaluated the clinical accuracy of 24 commercial COVID-19 iAg tests. The studies varied in risk of bias but showed high applicability. Of 24 iAg tests from 99 studies assessed in the meta-analysis, the pooled sensitivity and specificity compared to molecular testing of a paired NP swab sample were 76.7% (95% CI 73.5 to 79.7) and 98.4% (95% CI 98.0 to 98.7), respectively. Higher sensitivity was noted in individuals with high viral load (99.6% [95% CI 96.8 to 100] at Ct-level ≤ 20) and within the first week of symptom onset (84.6% [95% CI 78.2 to 89.3]), but did not differ between tests conducted as per manufacturer's instructions and those conducted differently, or between point-of-care and lab-based testing. CONCLUSION: Overall, iAg tests have a high pooled specificity but a moderate pooled sensitivity, according to our analysis. The pooled sensitivity increases with lower Ct-values (a proxy for viral load), or within the first week of symptom onset, enabling reliable identification of most COVID-19 cases and highlighting the importance of context in test selection. The study underscores the need for careful evaluation considering performance variations and operational features of iAg tests.

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.

Impact and cost-effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 self-testing strategies in schools: a multicountry modelling analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the most epidemiologically effective and cost-effective school-based SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detection rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT) self-testing strategies among teachers and students. DESIGN: Mathematical modelling and economic evaluation. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Simulated school and community populations were parameterised to Brazil, Georgia and Zambia, with SARS-CoV-2 self-testing strategies targeted to teachers and students in primary and secondary schools under varying epidemic conditions. INTERVENTIONS: SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT self-testing strategies for only teachers or teachers and students-only symptomatically or symptomatically and asymptomatically at 5%, 10%, 40% or 100% of schools at varying frequencies. OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes were assessed in terms of total infections and symptomatic days among teachers and students, as well as total infections and deaths within the community under the intervention compared with baseline. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for infections prevented among teachers and students. RESULTS: With respect to both the reduction in infections and total cost, symptomatic testing of all teachers and students appears to be the most cost-effective strategy. Symptomatic testing can prevent up to 69·3%, 64·5% and 75·5% of school infections in Brazil, Georgia and Zambia, respectively, depending on the epidemic conditions, with additional reductions in community infections. ICERs for symptomatic testing range from US$2 to US$19 per additional school infection averted as compared with symptomatic testing of teachers alone. CONCLUSIONS: Symptomatic testing of teachers and students has the potential to cost-effectively reduce a substantial number of school and community infections.

Comparing SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests for COVID-19 self-testing/self-sampling with molecular and professional-use tests: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Self-testing is an effective tool to bridge the testing gap for several infectious diseases; however, its performance in detecting SARS-CoV-2 using antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) has not been systematically reviewed. This study aimed to inform WHO guidelines by evaluating the accuracy of COVID-19 self-testing and self-sampling coupled with professional Ag-RDT conduct and interpretation. Articles on this topic were searched until November 7th, 2022. Concordance between self-testing/self-sampling and fully professional-use Ag-RDTs was assessed using Cohen's kappa. Bivariate meta-analysis yielded pooled performance estimates. Quality and certainty of evidence were evaluated using QUADAS-2 and GRADE tools. Among 43 studies included, twelve reported on self-testing, and 31 assessed self-sampling only. Around 49.6% showed low risk of bias. Overall concordance with professional-use Ag-RDTs was high (kappa 0.91 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88-0.94]). Comparing self-testing/self-sampling to molecular testing, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 70.5% (95% CI 64.3-76.0) and 99.4% (95% CI 99.1-99.6), respectively. Higher sensitivity (i.e., 93.6% [95% CI 90.4-96.8] for Ct < 25) was estimated in subgroups with higher viral loads using Ct values as a proxy. Despite high heterogeneity among studies, COVID-19 self-testing/self-sampling exhibits high concordance with professional-use Ag-RDTs. This suggests that self-testing/self-sampling can be offered as part of COVID-19 testing strategies.Trial registration: PROSPERO: CRD42021250706.

The role of syphilis self-testing as an additional syphilis testing approach in key populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Syphilis is causing epidemics in many countries. Syphilis self-testing (SST) has potential to increase testing and treatment coverage in the same manner as documented for self-testing of, for example, HIV, hepatitis C virus, and COVID-19. We aimed to synthesise current evidence on the utility of SST. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and, where possible, meta-analysis. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science for publications published from Jan 1, 2000, to Oct 13, 2022. We included publications with original data on any syphilis rapid tests, including dual HIV-syphilis tests. Study populations were not restricted. We used random-effects meta-analysis to calculate the pooled proportion of people offered SST who undertook the test. The systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022302129). FINDINGS: In total, 40 499 citations were identified. 11 publications from seven studies from the USA, Zimbabwe, and China met eligibility criteria. Of those, four studies reported data from men who have sex with men and five studies used dual HIV-SST. Using data from one randomised controlled trial and three observational studies, the pooled proportion of people who received SST kits who undertook the test was 88% (95% CI 85-91). No studies provided data on the sensitivity or specificity of SST. Overall, user and provider preference for SST was high, with participants reporting convenience, privacy, rapid results, autonomy, trust in blood-based tests, decreased facility contact, and time savings, with individuals being able to correctly self-test. Publications from China reported that SST had lower costs per person tested than existing facility-based testing options. INTERPRETATION: Our review builds on the literature for self-testing across different disease areas and demonstrates that SST has the potential to reach underserved populations. As this review found that SST use was acceptable and feasible to implement, SST can be used as an additional syphilis testing approach. Since no data on the sensitivity and specificity of SST were found, further implementation research will be required to guide the best strategies for SST service delivery and future scale-up. FUNDING: WHO, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, and Unitaid.

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.

Demand creation for HIV testing services: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: HIV testing services (HTS) are the first steps in reaching the UNAIDS 95-95-95 goals to achieve and maintain low HIV incidence. Evaluating the effectiveness of different demand creation interventions to increase uptake of efficient and effective HTS is useful to prioritize limited programmatic resources. This review was undertaken to inform World Health Organization (WHO) 2019 HIV testing guidelines and assessed the research question, "Which demand creation strategies are effective for enhancing uptake of HTS?" focused on populations globally. METHODS AND FINDINGS: The following electronic databases were searched through September 28, 2021: PubMed, PsycInfo, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL Complete, Web of Science Core Collection, EMBASE, and Global Health Database; we searched IAS and AIDS conferences. We systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any demand creation intervention (incentives, mobilization, counseling, tailoring, and digital interventions) to either a control or other demand creation intervention and reported HTS uptake. We pooled trials to evaluate categories of demand creation interventions using random-effects models for meta-analysis and assessed study quality with Cochrane's risk of bias 1 tool. This study was funded by the WHO and registered in Prospero with ID CRD42022296947. We screened 10,583 records and 507 conference abstracts, reviewed 952 full texts, and included 124 RCTs for data extraction. The majority of studies were from the African (N = 53) and Americas (N = 54) regions. We found that mobilization (relative risk [RR]: 2.01, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [1.30, 3.09], p < 0.05; risk difference [RD]: 0.29, 95% CI [0.16, 0.43], p < 0.05, N = 4 RCTs), couple-oriented counseling (RR: 1.98, 95% CI [1.02, 3.86], p < 0.05; RD: 0.12, 95% CI [0.03, 0.21], p < 0.05, N = 4 RCTs), peer-led interventions (RR: 1.57, 95% CI [1.15, 2.15], p < 0.05; RD: 0.18, 95% CI [0.06, 0.31], p < 0.05, N = 10 RCTs), motivation-oriented counseling (RR: 1.53, 95% CI [1.07, 2.20], p < 0.05; RD: 0.17, 95% CI [0.00, 0.34], p < 0.05, N = 4 RCTs), short message service (SMS) (RR: 1.53, 95% CI [1.09, 2.16], p < 0.05; RD: 0.11, 95% CI [0.03, 0.19], p < 0.05, N = 5 RCTs), and conditional fixed value incentives (RR: 1.52, 95% CI [1.21, 1.91], p < 0.05; RD: 0.15, 95% CI [0.07, 0.22], p < 0.05, N = 11 RCTs) all significantly and importantly (≥50% relative increase) increased HTS uptake and had medium risk of bias. Lottery-based incentives and audio-based interventions less importantly (25% to 49% increase) but not significantly increased HTS uptake (medium risk of bias). Personal invitation letters and personalized message content significantly but not importantly (<25% increase) increased HTS uptake (medium risk of bias). Reduced duration counseling had comparable performance to standard duration counseling (low risk of bias) and video-based interventions were comparable or better than in-person counseling (medium risk of bias). Heterogeneity of effect among pooled studies was high. This study was limited in that we restricted to randomized trials, which may be systematically less readily available for key populations; additionally, we compare only pooled estimates for interventions with multiple studies rather than single study estimates, and there was evidence of publication bias for several interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Mobilization, couple- and motivation-oriented counseling, peer-led interventions, conditional fixed value incentives, and SMS are high-impact demand creation interventions and should be prioritized for programmatic consideration. Reduced duration counseling and video-based interventions are an efficient and effective alternative to address staffing shortages. Investment in demand creation activities should prioritize those with undiagnosed HIV or ongoing HIV exposure. Selection of demand creation interventions must consider risks and benefits, context-specific factors, feasibility and sustainability, country ownership, and universal health coverage across disease areas.

Determining the screening frequency for sexually transmitted infections for people who use HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Although the World Health Organization recommends 'frequent' screening of sexually transmitted infections (STI) for people who use pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV, there is no evidence for optimal frequency. METHODS: We searched five databases and used random-effects meta-analysis to calculate pooled estimates of STI test positivity. We narratively synthesized data on secondary outcomes, including adherence to recommended STI screening frequency and changes in STI epidemiology. RESULTS: Of 7477 studies, we included 38 for the meta-analysis and 11 for secondary outcomes. With 2-3 monthly STI screening, the pooled positivity was 0.20 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.15-0.25) for chlamydia, 0.17 (95% CI: 0.12-0.22) for gonorrhea, and 0.07 (95% CI: 0.05-0.08) for syphilis. For chlamydia and gonorrhea, the positivity was approximately 50% and 75% lower, respectively, in studies that screened 4-6 monthly vs 2-3 monthly. There was no significant difference in the positivity for syphilis in studies that screened 4-6 monthly compared to 2-3 monthly. Adherence of clients to recommended screening frequency varied significantly (39-94%) depending on population and country. Modeling studies suggest more frequent STI screening could reduce incidence. CONCLUSION: Although more frequent STI screening could reduce delayed diagnoses and incidence, there remain significant knowledge gaps regarding the optimal STI screening frequency.

Improved rapid diagnostic tests to detect syphilis and yaws: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Current rapid tests for syphilis and yaws can detect treponemal and non-treponemal antibodies. We aimed to critically appraise the literature for rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) which can better distinguish an active infection of syphilis or yaws. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, searching five databases between January 2010 and October 2021 (with an update in July 2022). A generalised linear mixed model was used to conduct a bivariate meta-analysis for the pooled sensitivity and specificity. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. We used the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) to assess the risk of bias and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) to evaluate the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: We included 17 studies for meta-analyses. For syphilis, the pooled sensitivity and specificity of the treponemal component were 0.93 (95% CI: 0.86 to 0.97) and 0.98 (95% CI: 0.96 to 0.99), respectively. For the non-treponemal component, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.90 (95% CI: 0.82 to 0.95) and 0.97 (95% CI: 0.92 to 0.99), respectively. For yaws, the pooled sensitivity and specificity of the treponemal component were 0.86 (95% CI: 0.66 to 0.95) and 0.97 (95% CI: 0.94 to 0.99), respectively. For the non-treponemal component, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.80 (95% CI: 0.55 to 0.93) and 0.96 (95% CI: 0.92 to 0.98), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: RDTs that can differentiate between active and previously treated infections could optimise management by providing same-day treatment and reducing unnecessary treatment. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021279587.

HIV prevalence ratio of international migrants compared to their native-born counterparts: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: People on the move, including international migrants, may face health inequities that expose them to a higher risk for HIV than native-born populations. We conducted a systematic review to calculate the HIV prevalence ratio of international migrants compared with native-born populations. Methods: We searched five databases between January 2010 and March 2022. Using random-effects meta-analysis, we calculated the pooled HIV prevalence ratios (PR) by comparing the HIV prevalence of migrants with native-born populations. Our research protocol is registered in the International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO, CRD42021250867). Findings: In total, 5,121 studies were screened, and 38 were included in the final analysis: 7,121,699 migrants and more than 270 million natives were included in the analysis. The pooled PR for any foreign-born migrants was 1·70 (95% CI 1·11 - 2·61, I2 =99·67%, n = 33 studies), refugees was 2·37 (95% CI 0·33-16·99, I2 =99·5%, n = 5), undocumented people was 3·98 (95% CI 0·11-143·01, I2 =94·6%, n = 3), whilst asylum seekers was 54·79 (95% CI 17·23-174·23, I2 =90·2%, n = 2). Meta-regression revealed that population type (adjusted R-squared 11.5%), region of origin (11.3%) and migrant type (10.8%) accounted for heterogeneity more than country-income (2.4%) and study setting (2.3%). Interpretation: Although it was not possible to assess if HIV infection occurred in the country of origin or destination, the HIV prevalence ratio was higher among migrants than in native-born populations. Inclusive health policies and strategies for delivering HIV testing, prevention and treatment services for migrant populations tailored to their needs are urgently needed. Funding: J.J.O. and E.P.F.C. are supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Emerging Leader Fellowship (GNT1193955 and GNT1172873, respectively).

Examining the Use of HIV Self-Testing to Support PrEP Delivery: a Systematic Literature Review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: HIV self-testing (HIVST) has the potential to expand access to and uptake of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) delivery. We conducted a systematic literature review to understand the evidence on HIVST use for PrEP delivery. RECENT FINDINGS: After screening 1055 records, we included eight: three randomized trials and five values and preferences studies. None measured PrEP initiation. Most studies occurred in Sub-Saharan Africa (7/8) and included different populations. One trial found that HIVST use between quarterly clinic visits as part of an adherence package with biofeedback slightly increased adherence; the other two trials found that HIVST use between or in lieu of quarterly clinic visits had no significant or non-inferior effects on adherence. HIVST to support PrEP delivery was acceptable, feasible, and preferred. HIVST use for PrEP continuation largely resulted in similar outcomes to standard-of-care delivery and was perceived acceptable and feasible. Further research is needed to optimize HIVST use within PrEP programming.

HIV Testing Uptake According to Opt-In, Opt-Out or Risk-Based Testing Approaches: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Improving HIV testing uptake is essential to ending the HIV pandemic. HIV testing approaches can be opt-in, opt-out or risk-based. This systematic review examines and compares the uptake of HIV testing in opt-in, opt-out and risk-based testing approaches. RECENT FINDINGS: There remain missed opportunities for HIV testing in a variety of settings using different approaches: opt-in (a person actively accepts to be tested for HIV), opt-out (a person is informed that HIV testing is routine/standard of care, and they actively decline if they do not wish to be tested for HIV) or risk-based (using risk-based screening tools to focus testing on certain individuals or sub-populations at greater risk of HIV). It is not clear how the approach could impact HIV test uptake when adjusted for other factors (e.g. rapid testing, country-income level, test setting and population tested). We searched four databases for studies reporting on HIV test uptake. In total, 18,238 records were screened, and 150 studies were included in the review. Most studies described an opt-in approach (87 estimates), followed by opt-out (76) and risk-based (19). Opt-out testing was associated with 64.3% test uptake (I2 = 99.9%), opt-in testing with 59.8% (I2 = 99.9%) and risk-based testing with 54.4% (I2 = 99.9%). When adjusted for settings that offered rapid testing, country income level, setting and population tested, opt-out testing had a significantly higher uptake (+ 12% (95% confidence intervals: 3-21), p = 0.007) than opt-in testing. We also found that emergency department patients and hospital outpatients had significantly lower HIV test uptake than other populations.

Usability and acceptability of oral-based HCV self-testing among key populations: a mixed-methods evaluation in Tbilisi, Georgia.

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis C virus self-testing (HCVST) is an additional approach that may expand access to HCV testing. We conducted a mixed-methods cross-sectional observational study to assess the usability and acceptability of HCVST among people who inject drugs (PWID), men who have sex with men (MSM) and transgender (TG) people in Tbilisi, Georgia. METHODS: The study was conducted from December 2019 to June 2020 among PWID at one harm reduction site and among MSM/TG at one community-based organization. We used a convergent parallel mixed-methods design. Usability was assessed by observing errors made and difficulties faced by participants. Acceptability was assessed using an interviewer-administered semi-structured questionnaire. A subset of participants participated in cognitive and in-depth interviews. RESULTS: A total of 90 PWID, 84 MSM and 6 TG were observed performing HCVST. PWID were older (median age 35 vs 24) and had a lower level of education compared to MSM/TG (27% vs 59%). The proportion of participants who completed all steps successfully without assistance was 60% among PWID and 80% among MSM/TG. The most common error was in sample collection and this was observed more often among PWID than MSM/TG (21% vs 6%; p = 0.002). More PWID requested assistance during HCVST compared to MSM/TG (22% vs 8%; p = 0.011). Acceptability was high in both groups (98% vs 96%; p = 0.407). Inter-reader agreement was 97% among PWID and 99% among MSM/TG. Qualitative data from cognitive (n = 20) and in-depth interviews (n = 20) was consistent with the quantitative data confirming a high usability and acceptability. CONCLUSIONS: HCVST was highly acceptable among key populations in Georgia of relatively high educational level, and most participants performed HCVST correctly. A significant difference in usability was observed among PWID compared to MSM/TG, indicating that PWID may benefit from improved messaging and education as well as options to receive direct assistance when self-testing for HCV.

Understanding mechanisms of impact from community-led delivery of HIV self-testing: Mediation analysis of a cluster-randomised trial in Malawi.

Community HIV strategies are important for early diagnosis and treatment, with new self-care technologies expanding the types of services that can be led by communities. We evaluated mechanisms underlying the impact of community-led delivery of HIV self-testing (HIVST) using mediation analysis. We conducted a cluster-randomised trial allocating 30 group village heads and their catchment areas to the community-led HIVST intervention in addition to the standard of care (SOC) or the SOC alone. The intervention used participatory approaches to engage established community health groups to lead the design and implementation of HIVST campaigns. Potential mediators (individual perceptions of social cohesion, shared HIV concern, critical consciousness, community HIV stigma) and the outcome (HIV testing in the last 3 months) were measured through a post-intervention survey. Analysis used regression-based models to test (i) intervention-mediator effects, (ii) mediator-outcome effects, and (iii) direct and indirect effects. The survey included 972 and 924 participants in the community-led HIVST and SOC clusters, respectively. The community-led HIVST intervention increased uptake of recent HIV testing, with no evidence of indirect effects from changes in hypothesised mediators. However, standardised scores for community cohesion (adjusted mean difference [MD] 0.15, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.32, p = 0.10) and shared concern for HIV (adjusted MD 0.13, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.29, p = 0.09) were slightly higher in the community-led HIVST arm than the SOC arm. Social cohesion, community concern, and critical consciousness also apparently had a quadratic association with recent testing in the community-led HIVST arm, with a positive relationship indicated at lower ranges of each score. We found no evidence of intervention effects on community HIV stigma and its association with recent testing. We conclude that the intervention effect mostly operated directly through community-driven service delivery of a novel HIV technology rather than through intermediate effects on perceived community mobilisation and HIV stigma.

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.

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 US$. A postintervention survey captured individual-level data on HIV testing events, which were combined with unit costs from primary costings, and outcomes. The incremental cost per person tested HIV-positive and associated uncertainty were estimated. RESULTS: Overall, the community-led HIVST intervention costed $138 624 or $5.70 per HIVST kit distributed, with test kits and personnel the main contributing costs. The SOC costed $263 400 or $4.57 per person tested. Individual-level provider costs were higher in the community-led HIVST arm than the SOC arm (adjusted mean difference $3.77, 95% CI $2.44 to $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 $324 but increased to $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.

Innovative demand creation strategies to increase voluntary medical male circumcision uptake: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial in Zimbabwe.

INTRODUCTION: Reaching men aged 20-35 years, the group at greatest risk of HIV, with voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC) remains a challenge. We assessed the impact of two VMMC demand creation approaches targeting this age group in a randomised controlled trial (RCT). METHODS: We conducted a 2×2 factorial RCT comparing arms with and without two interventions: (1) standard demand creation augmented by human-centred design (HCD)-informed approach; (2) standard demand creation plus offer of HIV self-testing (HIVST). Interpersonal communication (IPC) agents were the unit of randomisation. We observed implementation of demand creation over 6 months (1 May to 31 October 2018), with number of men circumcised assessed over 7 months. The primary outcome was the number of men circumcised per IPC agent using the as-treated population of actual number of months each IPC agent worked. We conducted a mixed-methods process evaluation within the RCT. RESULTS: We randomised 140 IPC agents, 35 in each arm. 132/140 (94.3%) attended study training and 105/132 (79.5%) reached at least one client during the trial period and were included in final analysis. There was no evidence that the HCD-informed intervention increased VMMC uptake versus no HCD-informed intervention (incident rate ratio (IRR) 0.87, 95% CI 0.38 to 2.02; p=0.75). Nor did offering men a HIVST kit at time of VMMC mobilisation (IRR 0.65, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.50; p=0.31). Among IPC agents that reported reaching at least one man with demand creation, both the HCD-informed intervention and HIVST were deemed useful. There were some challenges with trial implementation; <50% of IPC agents converted any men to VMMC, which undermined our ability to show an effect of demand creation and may reflect acceptability and feasibility of the interventions. CONCLUSION: This RCT did not show evidence of an effect of HCD-informed demand intervention or HIVST on VMMC uptake. Findings will inform future design and implementation of demand creation evaluations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PACTR201804003064160.