"I just believe there is a risk" understanding of undetectable equals untransmissible (U = U) among health providers and HIV-negative partners in serodiscordant relationships in Kenya.

INTRODUCTION: Sustained HIV viral suppression resulting from antiretroviral therapy (ART) eliminates the risk of HIV transmission, a concept popularly framed as Undetectable = Untransmittable (U = U). We explored knowledge and acceptance of information around the elimination of HIV transmission risk with ART (U = U) in Kenya. METHODS: Our qualitative study was conducted within a project evaluating the use of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) integrated into ART care for HIV serodiscordant couples in public clinics in Kenya (the Partners Scale Up Project). From February 2017 to April 2019, we conducted semi-structured key informant interviews with 83 health providers and in-depth interviews with 61 HIV-negative people in serodiscordant relationships receiving PrEP services. Transcripts were coded using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Health providers reported being aware of reduced risk of HIV transmission as a result of consistent ART use and used words such as "very low," "minimal" and "like zero" to describe HIV transmission risk after viral suppression. Providers reported finding viral load results helpful when counselling clients about the risk of HIV transmission. Many lacked confidence in U = U and counselled on consistent condom use even after viral suppression while some expressed concerns that communicating this message to people living with HIV (PLHIV) would lead them to engage in multiple sexual relationships. Other providers reported that they did not counsel about the reduced risk of HIV transmission after viral suppression for fear of being blamed if HIV transmission occurred. HIV-negative partners reported being informed about U = U by providers but they did not believe nor trust the message. Even after their partners achieved viral suppression, some HIV-negative partners were unwilling to stop PrEP, while others indicated that they would use condoms if they stopped PrEP to be sure that they were protected from HIV. CONCLUSIONS: Despite awareness that effective ART use eliminates HIV transmission risk, there is both a lack of in-depth knowledge and conviction about the strategy among health providers and HIV-negative partners in serodiscordant relationships. New strategies that go beyond communicating the science of U = U to consider the local social and clinical environments could maximize the effectiveness of U = U.

Integrating PrEP into HIV care clinics could improve partner testing services and reinforce mutual support among couples: provider views from a PrEP implementation project in Kenya.

INTRODUCTION: Partner notification services (PNS) increase the HIV status knowledge and linkage to care and treatment. However, it is unclear if PNS can facilitate linkage of HIV-negative partners to prevention services such as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). Using qualitative methods, we explored provider perspective regarding the interaction of PrEP availability, PNS and antiretroviral treatment (ART) outcomes within a project integrating PrEP services into HIV care clinics in eight counties in western and central Kenya. METHODS: From May 2017 to August 2018, data on integrated PrEP service delivery including its interaction with PNS were collected through 71 key informant in-depth interviews with healthcare providers and 24 standardized technical assistance reports summarizing implementation at the participating clinics. Thus, the perspective was from that of providers; analyses focused on emergent themes relating PNS to PrEP and ART services. RESULTS: Providers found that PrEP integration provided an additional concrete prevention option for HIV-negative partners and created a motivation to offer PNS to persons living with HIV. PrEP availability also seemed to operate as an incentive for those living with HIV to participate in PNS, which in turn enhanced identification of potential PrEP clients and created an environment for discussing HIV transmission risk. Providers commented that initiating HIV-negative partners on PrEP enhanced mutual monitoring of health outcomes, including improved adherence to ART by partners living with HIV. Clinics noted prioritizing people living with HIV with detectable viral loads for PNS in order to identify HIV-negative partners who would benefit most from PrEP. Providers felt motivated by the apparent synergistic interaction of PNS, PrEP and ART. CONCLUSIONS: Providers felt that the integration of PrEP into HIV care clinics stimulated the provision of PNS, and PNS was used to improve the identification of potential PrEP clients. The integrated combination of PNS, PrEP and ART is synergistic and should be promoted in HIV clinics.