Factors associated with use of community-based, peer-led sexual and reproductive health services by adolescent boys and young men aged 18-24 in Lusaka, Zambia: A case control study nested in the Yathu Yathu trial.

INTRODUCTION: Adolescents and young people (AYP) aged 15-24 years have the least access to facility-based sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services, including HIV services. The Yathu-Yathu cluster-randomized trial (CRT) in Zambia tested whether a novel peer-led community-based approach increased knowledge of HIV status amongst AYP. In this nested case-control study, we aimed to identify factors associated with non-attendance to the Yathu Yathu hubs by adolescent boys and young men (ABYM) aged 18-24-years. METHODS: Yathu Yathu was a CRT conducted in two communities in Lusaka, Zambia, with 10 intervention and 10 control zones. AYP in all zones were offered prevention points cards (PPC), which incentivized and tracked service use at the hubs and health facility. In intervention zones, services were provided to AYP through community-based spaces (hubs) led by peer support workers. In these zones, cases were defined as those not having accessed any service at a hub and controls as those that accessed at least one service. Data were collected from October 2020 to January 2021 and analysed using methods appropriate for unmatched case-control studies. RESULTS: 161 cases and 160 controls consented to participate in the study. Participants aged 20-24 years (adjOR 1.99, 95%CI 1.26-3.12, p = 0.003), who were educated up to college level (adjOR 8.47,95%CI 2.08-34.53, p = 0.001) or who reported being employed in the last 12 months (adjOR 2.15, 95%CI 1.31-3.53, p = 0.002) were more likely to not attend the hubs. ABYM who had a friend with a PPC were more likely to attend the hubs (adjOR 0.18 95%CI 0.09-0.35, p<0.001). Most cases reported having their last HIV test at the local government health facility (58%) while most controls reported HIV-testing at a Yathu Yathu hub (82%). Among the controls, 84% (134/160) rated the hub experience as excellent. Among cases, 65% (104/161) stated they didn't visit the hubs "due to employment". CONCLUSIONS: Despite Yathu Yathu services being community-based and more accessible compared to health facilities, we found age, education and employment were associated with not attending hubs. Strategies are needed to reach employed young men who may not have access to SRH/HIV services during conventional working hours and to better utilise peer networks to increase service use.

Rates of viral suppression in a cohort of people with stable HIV from two community models of ART delivery versus facility-based HIV care in Lusaka, Zambia: a cluster-randomised, non-inferiority trial nested in the HPTN 071 (PopART) trial.

BACKGROUND: Non-facility-based antiretroviral therapy (ART) delivery for people with stable HIV might increase sustainable ART coverage in low-income and middle-income countries. Within the HPTN 071 (PopART) trial, two interventions, home-based delivery (HBD) and adherence clubs (AC), which included groups of 15-30 participants who met at a communal venue, were compared with standard of care (SoC). In this trial we looked at the effectiveness and feasibility of these alternative models of care. Specifically, this trial aimed to assess whether these models of care had similar virological suppression to that of SoC 12 months after enrolment. METHODS: This was a three-arm, cluster-randomised, non-inferiority trial, done in two urban communities in Lusaka, Zambia included in the HPTN 071 trial. The two communities were split into zones, which were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to the three treatment strategies: 35 zones to the SoC group, 35 zones to the HBD group, and 34 zones to the AC group. ART and adherence support were delivered once every 3 months at home for the HBD group, in groups of 15-30 people in the AC group, or in the clinic for the SoC group. Adults with HIV who were receiving first-line ART for at least 6 months, virally suppressed using national HIV guidelines in the last 12 months, had no other health conditions requiring the clinicians attention, live in the study catchment area, and provided written informed consent, were eligible for inclusion. The primary endpoint was viral suppression at 12 months (with a 6 month final measurement window [ie, 9-15 months]), defined as less than 1000 HIV RNA copies per mL, with a non-inferiority margin of 5%. FINDINGS: Between May 5 and Dec 19, 2017, 9900 individuals were screened for inclusion, of whom 2489 (25·1%) participants were enrolled into the trial: 781 (31%) in the SoC group, 852 (34%) in the HBD group, and 856 (34%) in the AC group. A higher proportion of participants had viral load measurements in the primary outcome window in the HBD (581 [61%]of 852 participants) and AC (485 [57%] of 856 participants) groups than in the SoC (390 [50%] of 781 patients) group (p=0·0021). Of the 1096 missing observations, 152 (13·8%) were attributable to either deaths (25 [16%] participants), relocations (37 [24%] participants), or lost to follow-up (90 [59%]); 690 (63·0%) participants had viral load results outside the window period; and 254 (23·2%) did not have a viral load result. The prevalence of viral suppression was estimated to be 98·3% (95% CI 96·6 to 99·7) in the SoC group, 98·7% (97·5 to 99·6) in the HBD group, and 99·2% (98·4 to 99·8) in the AC group. This gave an estimated risk difference of 0·3% (95% CI -1·5 to 2·4) for the HBD group compared with the SoC group and 0·9% (-0·8 to 2·8) for the AC group compared with the SoC group. There was strong evidence (p<0·0001) that both community ART models were non-inferior to the SoC group (p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: Community models of ART delivery were as effective as facility-based care in terms of viral suppression. FUNDING: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, The International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie), the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institute of Mental Health, and President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief.

Who Accepts and Who Uses Community-Based Secondary Distribution HIV Self-Testing (HIVST) Kits? Findings From the Intervention Arm of a Cluster-Randomized Trial of HIVST Distribution Nested in Four HPTN 071 (PopART) Communities in Zambia.

BACKGROUND: HPTN 071 (PopART) was a community-randomized trial of a universal testing-and-treatment intervention on HIV incidence at population level in Zambia and South Africa. In Zambia, a trial of community-based distribution of HIV self-testing (HIVST) kits, including secondary distribution, as an option for HIV-testing was nested within 4 PopART intervention communities. We used data from the intervention arm of the nested trial to measure levels of and factors associated with acceptance and use of secondary distribution HIVST kits. METHODS: Community HIV care providers offered the PopART combination HIV-prevention intervention door-to-door, systematically visiting all households and enumerating all household members. From 1 February to 30 April 2017, individuals aged 16 years and older consenting to PopART were offered the option to HIV self-test, if eligible for HIV-testing services. Individuals aged 18 years and older who reported a partner absent during household visits were offered an HIVST kit for secondary distribution to this partner. We used two data sources to measure acceptance and use of secondary distribution HIVST kits. RESULTS: Among 9105 individuals aged 18 years and older consenting to PopART, 9.1% (n = 825) accepted an HIVST kit for secondary distribution. Approximately 55.8% reported that the kit had been used. Women were more likely to accept, and men more likely to use, secondary distribution HIVST kits. Kits were more likely to be used by individuals aged 30+ and who had not participated in a previous round of PopART. Approximately 6.8% had a reactive result. CONCLUSIONS: Community-based secondary distribution of HIVST kits reached men absent during community HIV care provider household visits and is a complement to facility- and community-based HIV-testing services, which often miss men.

Community based distribution of oral HIV self-testing kits in Zambia: a cluster-randomised trial nested in four HPTN 071 (PopART) intervention communities.

BACKGROUND: The HPTN 071 (PopART) cluster-randomised trial provided door-to-door HIV testing services to a large proportion of individuals residing in 21 intervention communities in Zambia and South Africa from 2014 to 2017 and reached the UNAIDS first 90 target among women in Zambia, yet gaps remained among men and young adults. This cluster-randomised study nested in the HPTN 071 (PopART) trial sought to increase knowledge of HIV status across all groups by offering the choice of oral HIV self-testing in addition to routine door-to-door HIV testing services. METHODS: We nested this cluster-randomised trial in four HTPN 071 (PopART) intervention communities in northern Zambia. 66 zones (clusters) in these communities were randomly allocated (1:1) to either oral HIV self-testing plus routine door-to-door HIV testing services (HIV self-testing group) or the PopART standard of care of door-to-door HIV testing services alone (non- HIV self-testing group) over a 3-month period. All individuals aged 16 years or older were eligible for HIV testing. Randomisation was achieved by randomly selecting one allocation from a list of 10 000 possible allocations during a public ceremony. In HIV self-testing zones, trained lay-counsellors (known as community HIV care providers) visited households and offered eligible individuals the choice of HIV testing using HIV self-testing or routine door-to-door HIV testing services. For individuals aged 18 years or older whose partner was absent during the household visit, an HIV self-test kit could be left for secondary distribution to the absent partner. The primary outcome was knowledge of HIV status (defined as self-reporting HIV positive to the community HIV care providers or accepting an offer of HIV testing services). Outcomes were measured among households that were first visited, and individuals first enumerated as a household member during the HIV self-testing intervention period. We analysed data at the individual level using population-average logistic regression models, accounting for clustering of outcomes by zone, to estimate the effect of the intervention. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02994329. FINDINGS: Between Feb 1, and April 30, 2017, the community HIV care providers enumerated 13 267 eligible individuals in the HIV self-testing group and 13 706 in the non-HIV self-testing group. After intervention implementation, 9027 (68%) of 13 267 in the HIV self-testing group had knowledge of HIV status compared with 8952 (65%) of 13 706 in the non-HIV self-testing group (adjusted odds ratio 1·30, 95% CI 1·03-1·65; p=0·03). The effect differed by sex (pinteraction=0·01). Among men, knowledge of HIV status was higher in the HIV self-testing group than in the non-HIV self-testing group (3843 [60%] of 6368 vs 3571 [55%] of 6486; adjusted odds ratio 1·31, 95% CI 1·07-1·60; p=0·01). There was no evidence of a between-group difference among female participants. INTERPRETATION: Providing a choice of HIV self-testing during delivery of door-to-door HIV testing services increased knowledge of HIV status, driven by an effect among men. Lay counsellors have a vital role to play in adapting HIV self-testing interventions to local context. FUNDING: The International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie), the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institute of Mental Health, and the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief.