HIV partner services in Kenya: a cost and budget impact analysis study.

BACKGROUND: The elicitation of contact information, notification and testing of sex partners of HIV infected patients (aPS), is an effective HIV testing strategy in low-income settings but may not necessarily be affordable. We applied WHO guidelines and the International Society for Pharmaco-economics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) guidelines to conduct cost and budget impact analyses, respectively, of aPS compared to current practice of HIV testing services (HTS) in Kisumu County, Kenya. METHODS: Using study data and time motion studies, we constructed an Excel-based tool to estimate costs and the budget impact of aPS. Cost data were collected from selected facilities in Kisumu County. We report the annual total and unit costs of HTS, incremental total and unit costs for aPS, and the budget impact of scaling up aPS over a 5-year horizon. We also considered a task-shifted scenario that used community health workers (CHWs) rather than facility based health workers and conducted sensitivity analyses assuming different rates of scale up of aPS. RESULTS: The average unit costs for HIV testing among HIV-infected index clients was US$ 25.36 per client and US$ 17.86 per client using nurses and CHWs, respectively. The average incremental costs for providing enhanced aPS in Kisumu County were US$ 1,092,161 and US$ 753,547 per year, using nurses and CHWs, respectively. The average incremental cost of scaling up aPS over a five period was 45% higher when using nurses compared to using CHWs (US$ 5,460,837 and US$ 3,767,738 respectively). Over the five years, the upper-bound budget impact of nurse-model was US$ 1,767,863, 63% and 35% of which were accounted for by aPS costs and ART costs, respectively. The CHW model incurred an upper-bound incremental cost of US$ 1,258,854, which was 71.2% lower than the nurse-based model. The budget impact was sensitive to the level of aPS coverage and ranged from US$ 28,547 for 30% coverage using CHWs in 2014 to US$ 1,267,603 for 80% coverage using nurses in 2018. CONCLUSION: Scaling aPS using nurses has minimal budget impact but not cost-saving over a five-year period. Targeting aPS to newly-diagnosed index cases and task-shifting to community health workers is recommended.

Index participant characteristics and HIV assisted partner services efficacy in Kenya: results of a cluster randomized trial.

INTRODUCTION: We have previously demonstrated that assisted partner services (aPS) increases HIV testing and case finding among partners of persons living with HIV (PLHIV) in a cluster randomized trial in Kenya. However, the efficacy of aPS may vary across populations. In this analysis, we explore differences in aPS efficacy by characteristics of index participants. METHODS: Eighteen HIV testing sites were randomized to immediate versus 6-week delayed aPS. Participants were PLHIV (or index participants) and their sexual partners. Partners of index participants were contacted for HIV testing and linked to care if HIV positive. Primary outcomes were the number of partners per index participant who: 1) tested for HIV, 2) tested HIV positive and 3) enrolled in HIV care. We used generalized estimating equations to assess differences in aPS efficacy by region, testing location, gender, age and knowledge of HIV status. RESULTS: From 2013 to 2015, the study enrolled 1119 index participants, 625 of whom were in the immediate group. These index participants named 1286 sexual partners. Immediate aPS was more efficacious than delayed aPS in promoting HIV testing among partners in high compared to low HIV prevalence regions (Nyanza incidence rate ratio (IRR) 7.2; 95% confidence interval (CI) 5.4, 9.6 vs. Nairobi/Central IRR 3.4 95% CI 2.3, 4.8). Higher rates of partner HIV testing were also observed for index participants in rural/peri-urban compared to urban sites (IRR 6.6; 95% CI 4.5, 9.6 vs. IRR 3.5 95% CI 2.5, 5.0 respectively), for female versus male index participants (IRR 5.8 95% CI 4.2, 7.9 vs. IRR 3.7; 95% CI 2.4, 5.8 respectively) and for newly diagnosed versus known HIV-positive index participants (IRR 6.0 95% CI 4.2, 8.7 vs. IRR 3.3; 95% CI 2.0, 7.7 respectively). Providing aPS to female versus male index participants also had a significantly higher HIV case finding rate (IRR 9.1; 95% CI 4.0, 20.9 vs. IRR 3.2 95% CI 1.7, 6.0 respectively.) CONCLUSIONS: While it is known that aPS promotes increases in HIV testing and case finding, this is the first study to demonstrate significant differences in aPS efficacy across characteristics of the index participant. Understanding these differences and their drivers will be critical as aPS is brought to scale in order to ensure all PLHIV have access to these services.

Brief Report: HIV Assisted Partner Services Among Those With and Without a History of Intimate Partner Violence in Kenya.

BACKGROUND: HIV assisted partner services (APS) are a notification and testing strategy for sex partners of HIV-infected index patients. This cluster-randomized controlled trial secondary data analysis investigated whether history of intimate partner violence (IPV) modified APS effectiveness and risk of relationship dissolution. SETTING: Eighteen HIV testing and counseling sites in Kenya randomized to provide immediate APS (intervention) or APS delayed for 6 weeks (control). METHODS: History of IPV was ascertained at study enrollment and defined as reporting ever experiencing physical or sexual IPV. Those reporting IPV in the month before enrollment were excluded. We tested whether history of IPV modified intervention effectiveness and risk of relationship dissolution using population-averaged Poisson and log-binomial generalized estimating equation models. Exploratory analyses investigated associations between history of IPV and events that occurred after HIV diagnosis using log-binomial generalized estimating equation models. RESULTS: The study enrolled 1119 index participants and 1286 partners. Among index participants, 81 (7%) had history of IPV. History of IPV did not modify APS effectiveness in testing, newly diagnosing, or linking partners to care. History of IPV did not modify the association between receiving immediate APS and relationship dissolution during the study. CONCLUSIONS: Among participants who had not experienced IPV in the last month but had experienced IPV in their lifetimes, our results suggest that APS is an effective and safe partner notification strategy in Kenya. As APS is scaled up in different contexts, these data support including those reporting past IPV and closely monitoring adverse events.

Assisted partner services for HIV in Kenya: a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Assisted partner services for index patients with HIV infections involves elicitation of information about sex partners and contacting them to ensure that they test for HIV and link to care. Assisted partner services are not widely available in Africa. We aimed to establish whether or not assisted partner services increase HIV testing, diagnoses, and linkage to care among sex partners of people with HIV infections in Kenya. METHODS: In this cluster randomised controlled trial, we recruited non-pregnant adults aged at least 18 years with newly or recently diagnosed HIV without a recent history of intimate partner violence who had not yet or had only recently linked to HIV care from 18 HIV testing services clinics in Kenya. Consenting sites in Kenya were randomly assigned (1:1) by the study statistician (restricted randomisation; balanced distribution in terms of county and proximity to a city) to immediate versus delayed assisted partner services. Primary outcomes were the number of partners tested for HIV, the number who tested HIV positive, and the number enrolled in HIV care, in those who were interviewed at 6 week follow-up. Participants within each cluster were masked to treatment allocation because participants within each cluster received the same intervention. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01616420. FINDINGS: Between Aug 12, 2013, and Aug 31, 2015, we randomly allocated 18 clusters to immediate and delayed HIV assisted partner services (nine in each group), enrolling 1305 participants: 625 (48%) in the immediate group and 680 (52%) in the delayed group. 6 weeks after enrolment of index patients, 392 (67%) of 586 partners had tested for HIV in the immediate group and 85 (13%) of 680 had tested in the delayed group (incidence rate ratio 4·8, 95% CI 3·7-6·4). 136 (23%) partners had new HIV diagnoses in the immediate group compared with 28 (4%) in the delayed group (5·0, 3·2-7·9) and 88 (15%) versus 19 (3%) were newly enrolled in care (4·4, 2·6-7·4). Assisted partner services did not increase intimate partner violence (one intimate partner violence event related to partner notification or study procedures occurred in each group). INTERPRETATION: Assisted partner services are safe and increase HIV testing and case-finding; implementation at the population level could enhance linkage to care and antiretroviral therapy initiation and substantially decrease HIV transmission. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health.