Suchergebnisse

AbstractIntroductionHIV self‐testing (HIVST) was first proposed as an additional option to standard HIV testing services in the 1980s. By 2015, two years after the first HIVST kit was approved for the American market and the year in which Unitaid invested in the "HIV Self‐Testing AfRica (STAR) Initiative," HIVST remained unexplored with negligible access in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMIC). However, rapid progress had been made. This commentary outlines the interlinked market, regulatory and policy barriers that had inhibited product development and kept HIVST out of LMIC policy. We detail the components of STAR that enabled rapid HIVST scale‐up, including critical investments in implementation, research, market forecasting, and engagement with manufacturers and regulators.DiscussionThe STAR Initiative has generated crucial information about how to distribute HIVST products effectively, ethically and efficiently. Service delivery models range from clinic‐based distribution to workplace and partner‐delivered approaches to reach first‐time male testers, to community outreach to sex workers and general population "hotspots." These data directly informed supportive policy, notably the 2016 WHO guidelines strongly recommending HIVST as an additional testing approach, and regulatory change through support for WHO prequalification of the first HIVST kit in 2017. In July 2015, only two countries had national HIVST policies and were implementing HIVST. Three years later, 59 countries have policies, actively implemented in 28, with an additional 53 countries reporting policies under development. By end‐November 2018 several quality‐assured HIVST products had been registered, including two WHO prequalified tests. STAR Initiative countries have drafted regulations governing in vitro diagnostics, including HIVST products. With enabling policies, pre‐qualification and regulations in place, donor procurement of kits has increased rapidly, to a forecasted estimate of 16 million HIVST kits procured by 2020.ConclusionsThe STAR Initiative provided a strong foundation to introduce HIVST in LMICs and allow for rapid scale‐up based on the wealth of multi‐country evidence gathered. Together with sustained coordination and acceleration of market development work, HIVST can help address the testing gap and provide a focused and cost‐effective means to expand access to treatment and prevention services.

Background Secondary distribution of HIV self-testing (HIVST) kits by patients attending clinic services to their partners could improve the rate of HIV diagnosis. We aimed to investigate whether secondary administration of HIVST kits, with or without an additional financial incentive, via women receiving antenatal care (ANC) or via people newly diagnosed with HIV (ie, index patients) could improve the proportion of male partners tested or the number of people newly diagnosed with HIV. Methods We did a three-arm, open-label, pragmatic, cluster-randomised trial of 27 health centres (clusters), eligible if they were a government primary health centre providing ANC, HIV testing, and ART services, across four districts of Malawi. We recruited women (aged ≥18 years) attending their first ANC visit and whose male partner was available, not already taking ART, and not already tested for HIV during this pregnancy (ANC cohort), and people (aged ≥18 years) with newly diagnosed HIV during routine clinic HIV testing who had at least one sexual contact not already known to be HIV-positive (index cohort). Centres were randomly assigned (1:1:1), using a public selection of computer-generated random allocations, to enhanced standard of care (including an invitation for partners to attend HIV testing services), HIVST only, or HIVST plus a US$10 financial incentive for retesting. The primary outcome for the ANC cohort was the proportion of male partners reportedly tested, as ascertained by interview with women in this cohort at day 28. The primary outcome for the index cohort was the geometric mean number of new HIV-positive people identified per facility within 28 days of enrolment, as measured by observed HIV test results. Cluster-level summaries compared intervention with standard of care by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03705611. Findings Between Sept 8, 2018, and May 2, 2019, nine clusters were assigned to each trial arm, resulting in 4544 eligible women in the ANC cohort (1447 [31·8%] in the standard care group, 1465 [32·2%] in the HIVST only group, and 1632 [35·9%] in HIVST plus financial incentive group) and 708 eligible patients in the index cohort (234 [33·1%] in the standard care group, 169 [23·9%] in the HIVST only group, and 305 [42·9%] in the HIVST plus financial incentive group). 4461 (98·2%) of 4544 eligible women in the ANC cohort and 645 (91·1%) of 708 eligible patients in the index cohort were recruited, of whom 3378 (75·7%) in the ANC cohort and 439 (68·1%) in the index cohort were interviewed after 28 days. In the ANC cohort, the mean proportion of reported partner testing per cluster was 35·0% (SD 10·0) in the standard care group, 73·0% in HIVST only group (13·1, adjusted risk ratio [RR] 1·71, 95% CI 1·48–1·98; p<0·0001), and 65·2% in the HIVST plus financial incentive group (11·6, adjusted RR 1·62, 1·45–1·81; p<0·0001). In the index cohort, the geometric mean number of new HIV-positive sexual partners per cluster was 1·35 (SD 1·62) for the standard care group, 1·91 (1·78) for the HIVST only group (incidence rate ratio adjusted for number eligible as an offset in the negative binomial model 1·65, 95% CI 0·49–5·55; p=0·3370), and 3·20 (3·81) for the HIVST plus financial incentive group (3·11, 0·99–9·77; p=0·0440). Four self-resolving, temporary marital separations occurred due to disagreement in couples regarding HIV self-test kits. Interpretation Although administration of HIVST kits in the ANC cohort, even when offered alongside a financial incentive, did not identify significantly more male patients with HIV than did standard care, out-of-clinic options for HIV testing appear more acceptable to many male partners of women with HIV, increasing test uptake. Viewed in the current context, this approach might allow continuation of services despite COVID-19-related lockdowns.

BACKGROUND: Secondary distribution of HIV self-testing (HIVST) kits by patients attending clinic services to their partners could improve the rate of HIV diagnosis. We aimed to investigate whether secondary administration of HIVST kits, with or without an additional financial incentive, via women receiving antenatal care (ANC) or via people newly diagnosed with HIV (ie, index patients) could improve the proportion of male partners tested or the number of people newly diagnosed with HIV. METHODS: We did a three-arm, open-label, pragmatic, cluster-randomised trial of 27 health centres (clusters), eligible if they were a government primary health centre providing ANC, HIV testing, and ART services, across four districts of Malawi. We recruited women (aged ≥18 years) attending their first ANC visit and whose male partner was available, not already taking ART, and not already tested for HIV during this pregnancy (ANC cohort), and people (aged ≥18 years) with newly diagnosed HIV during routine clinic HIV testing who had at least one sexual contact not already known to be HIV-positive (index cohort). Centres were randomly assigned (1:1:1), using a public selection of computer-generated random allocations, to enhanced standard of care (including an invitation for partners to attend HIV testing services), HIVST only, or HIVST plus a US$10 financial incentive for retesting. The primary outcome for the ANC cohort was the proportion of male partners reportedly tested, as ascertained by interview with women in this cohort at day 28. The primary outcome for the index cohort was the geometric mean number of new HIV-positive people identified per facility within 28 days of enrolment, as measured by observed HIV test results. Cluster-level summaries compared intervention with standard of care by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03705611. FINDINGS: Between Sept 8, 2018, and May 2, 2019, nine clusters were assigned to each trial arm, resulting in 4544 eligible women in the ANC cohort (1447 [31·8%] in the standard care group, 1465 [32·2%] in the HIVST only group, and 1632 [35·9%] in HIVST plus financial incentive group) and 708 eligible patients in the index cohort (234 [33·1%] in the standard care group, 169 [23·9%] in the HIVST only group, and 305 [42·9%] in the HIVST plus financial incentive group). 4461 (98·2%) of 4544 eligible women in the ANC cohort and 645 (91·1%) of 708 eligible patients in the index cohort were recruited, of whom 3378 (75·7%) in the ANC cohort and 439 (68·1%) in the index cohort were interviewed after 28 days. In the ANC cohort, the mean proportion of reported partner testing per cluster was 35·0% (SD 10·0) in the standard care group, 73·0% in HIVST only group (13·1, adjusted risk ratio [RR] 1·71, 95% CI 1·48-1·98; p<0·0001), and 65·2% in the HIVST plus financial incentive group (11·6, adjusted RR 1·62, 1·45-1·81; p<0·0001). In the index cohort, the geometric mean number of new HIV-positive sexual partners per cluster was 1·35 (SD 1·62) for the standard care group, 1·91 (1·78) for the HIVST only group (incidence rate ratio adjusted for number eligible as an offset in the negative binomial model 1·65, 95% CI 0·49-5·55; p=0·3370), and 3·20 (3·81) for the HIVST plus financial incentive group (3·11, 0·99-9·77; p=0·0440). Four self-resolving, temporary marital separations occurred due to disagreement in couples regarding HIV self-test kits. INTERPRETATION: Although administration of HIVST kits in the ANC cohort, even when offered alongside a financial incentive, did not identify significantly more male patients with HIV than did standard care, out-of-clinic options for HIV testing appear more acceptable to many male partners of women with HIV, increasing test uptake. Viewed in the current context, this approach might allow continuation of services despite COVID-19-related lockdowns. FUNDING: Unitaid, through the Self-Testing Africa Initiative.

BACKGROUND: Secondary distribution of HIV self-testing (HIVST) kits by patients attending clinic services to their partners could improve the rate of HIV diagnosis. We aimed to investigate whether secondary administration of HIVST kits, with or without an additional financial incentive, via women receiving antenatal care (ANC) or via people newly diagnosed with HIV (ie, index patients) could improve the proportion of male partners tested or the number of people newly diagnosed with HIV. METHODS: We did a three-arm, open-label, pragmatic, cluster-randomised trial of 27 health centres (clusters), eligible if they were a government primary health centre providing ANC, HIV testing, and ART services, across four districts of Malawi. We recruited women (aged ≥18 years) attending their first ANC visit and whose male partner was available, not already taking ART, and not already tested for HIV during this pregnancy (ANC cohort), and people (aged ≥18 years) with newly diagnosed HIV during routine clinic HIV testing who had at least one sexual contact not already known to be HIV-positive (index cohort). Centres were randomly assigned (1:1:1), using a public selection of computer-generated random allocations, to enhanced standard of care (including an invitation for partners to attend HIV testing services), HIVST only, or HIVST plus a US$10 financial incentive for retesting. The primary outcome for the ANC cohort was the proportion of male partners reportedly tested, as ascertained by interview with women in this cohort at day 28. The primary outcome for the index cohort was the geometric mean number of new HIV-positive people identified per facility within 28 days of enrolment, as measured by observed HIV test results. Cluster-level summaries compared intervention with standard of care by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03705611. FINDINGS: Between Sept 8, 2018, and May 2, 2019, nine clusters were assigned to each trial arm, resulting in 4544 eligible women in the ANC cohort (1447 ...

AbstractIntroduction: In order to facilitate scale‐up of antiretroviral therapy (ART) in Malawi, innovative and pragmatic models have been developed to optimize the efficiency of HIV service delivery. In particular, three models of differentiated care have emerged for stable patients: adjusted appointment spacing through multi‐month scripting (MMS); fast‐track drug refills (FTRs) on alternating visits; and community ART groups (CAGs) where group members rotate in collecting medications at the facility for all members. This study aimed to assess the extent to which ART patients in Malawi are differentiated based on clinical stability and describe the characteristics and costs associated with the models of differentiated care offered.Methods: A mixed methods process evaluation was conducted from 30 purposefully selected ART facilities. Cross‐sectional data for this evaluation was collected between February and May 2016. The following forms of data collection are reported here: structured surveys with 136 health care workers; reviews of 75,364 patient clinical records; 714 observations of visit time and flow; and 30 questionnaires on facility characteristics.Results: Among ART patients, 77.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 74.1–80.6) were eligible for differentiated models of care based on criteria for clinical stability from national guidelines. Across all facilities, 69% of patients were receiving MMS. In facilities offering FTRs and CAGs, 67% and 6% of patients were enrolled in the models, respectively. However, eligibility criteria were used inconsistently: 72.9% (95% CI 66.3–78.6) of eligible patients and 42.3% (95% CI 33.1–52.0) ineligible patients received MMS. Results indicated that patient travel and time costs were reduced by 67%, and the unit costs of ART service delivery through the MMS, FTR and CAG models were similar, representing a reduction of approximately 10% in the annual unit cost of providing care to stable patients that receive no model.Conclusions: MMS is being implemented nationally and has already generated cost savings and efficiencies in Malawi for patients and the health system, but could be improved by more accurate patient differentiation. While expanding FTRs and CAGs may not offer significant further cost savings in Malawi, future studies should investigate if such alternative models lead to improvements in patient satisfaction or clinical outcomes that might justify their implementation.

AbstractIntroductionHIV self‐testing (HIVST) provides couples and individuals with a discreet, convenient and empowering testing option. As with all HIV testing, potential harms must be anticipated and mitigated to optimize individual and public health benefits. Here, we describe social harms (SHs) reported during HIVST implementation in Malawi, and propose a framework for grading and responding to harms, according to their severity.MethodsWe report findings from six HIVST implementation studies in Malawi (2011 to 2017) that included substudies investigating SH reports. Qualitative methods included focus group discussions, in‐depth interviews and critical incident interviews. Earlier studies used intensive quantitative methods (post‐test questionnaires for intimate partner violence, household surveys, investigation of all deaths in HIVST communities). Later studies used post‐marketing reporting with/without community engagement. Pharmacovigilance methodology (whereby potentially life‐threatening/changing events are defined as "serious") was used to grade SH severity, assuming more complete passive reporting for serious events.ResultsDuring distribution of 175,683 HIVST kits, predominantly under passive SH reporting, 25 serious SHs were reported from 19 (0.011%) self‐testers, including 15 partners in eight couples with newly identified HIV discordancy, and one perinatally infected adolescent. There were no deaths or suicides. Marriage break‐up was the most commonly reported serious SH (sixteen individuals; eight couples), particularly among serodiscordant couples. Among new concordant HIV‐positive couples, blame and frustration was common but rarely (one episode) led to serious SHs. Among concordant HIV‐negative couples, increased trust and stronger relationships were reported. Coercion to test or disclose was generally considered "well‐intentioned" within established couples. Women felt empowered and were assertive when offering HIVST test kits to their partners. Some women who persuaded their partner to test, however, did report SHs, including verbal or physical abuse and economic hardship.ConclusionsAfter more than six years of large‐scale HIVST implementation and in‐depth investigation of SHs in Malawi, we identified approximately one serious reported SH per 10,000 HIVST kits distributed, predominantly break‐up of married serodiscordant couples. Both "active" and "passive" reporting systems identified serious SH events, although with more complete capture by "active" systems. As HIVST is scaled‐up, efforts to support and further optimize community‐led SH monitoring should be prioritized alongside HIVST distribution.

AbstractIntroductionDespite widespread success in reducing vertical HIV transmission, most antenatal care (ANC) programmes in eastern and southern Africa have not emphasized primary prevention of maternal HIV acquisition during pregnancy and lactation/breastfeeding. We hypothesized that combination HIV prevention interventions initiated alongside ANC could substantially reduce maternal HIV incidence.MethodsWe constructed a multi‐state model describing male‐to‐female HIV transmission in steady heterosexual partnerships during pregnancy and lactation/breastfeeding, with initial conditions based on population distribution estimates for Malawi and Zambia in 2020. We modelled individual and joint increases in three HIV prevention strategies at or soon after ANC initiation: (1) HIV testing of male partners, resulting in HIV diagnosis and less condomless sex among those with previously undiagnosed HIV; (2) initiation (or re‐initiation) of suppressive antiretroviral therapy (ART) for male partners with diagnosed but unsuppressed HIV; and (3) adherent pre‐exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV‐negative female ANC patients with HIV‐diagnosed or unknown‐status male partners. We estimated the percentage of within‐couple, male‐to‐female HIV transmissions that could be averted during pregnancy and lactation/breastfeeding with these strategies, relative to base‐case conditions in which 45% of undiagnosed male partners become newly HIV diagnosed via testing, 75% of male partners with diagnosed but unsuppressed HIV initiate/re‐initiate ART and 0% of female ANC patients start PrEP.ResultsIncreasing uptake of any single strategy by 20 percentage points above base‐case levels averted 10%−11% of maternal HIV acquisitions during pregnancy and lactation/breastfeeding in the model. Joint uptake increases of 20 percentage points in two interventions averted an estimated 19%−23% of transmissions, and with a 20‐percentage‐point increase in uptake of all three interventions, 29% were averted. Strategies achieving 95% male testing, 90% male ART initiation/re‐initiation and 40% female PrEP use reduced incident infections by 45%.ConclusionsCombination HIV prevention strategies provided alongside ANC and sustained through the post‐partum period could substantially reduce maternal HIV incidence during pregnancy and lactation/breastfeeding in eastern and southern Africa.

AbstractIntroductionAchieving optimal HIV outcomes, as measured by global 90‐90‐90 targets, that is awareness of HIV‐positive status, receipt of antiretroviral (ARV) therapy among aware and viral load (VL) suppression among those on ARVs, respectively, is critical. However, few data from sub‐Saharan Africa (SSA) are available on older people (50+) living with HIV (OPLWH). We examined 90‐90‐90 progress by age, 15–49 (as a comparison) and 50+ years, with further analyses among 50+ (55–59, 60–64, 65+ vs. 50–54), in 13 countries (Cameroon, Cote d'Ivoire, Eswatini, Ethiopia, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Namibia, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe).MethodsUsing data from nationally representative Population‐based HIV Impact Assessments, conducted between 2015and 2019, participants from randomly selected households provided demographic and clinical information and whole blood specimens for HIV serology, VL and ARV testing. Survey weighted outcomes were estimated for 90‐90‐90 targets. Country‐specific Poisson regression models examined 90‐90‐90 variation among OPLWH age strata.ResultsAnalyses included 24,826 HIV‐positive individuals (15–49 years: 20,170; 50+ years: 4656). The first, second and third 90 outcomes were achieved in 1, 10 and 5 countries, respectively, by those aged 15–49, while OPLWH achieved outcomes in 3, 13 and 12 countries, respectively. Among those aged 15–49, women were more likely to achieve 90‐90‐90 targets than men; however, among OPLWH, men were more likely to achieve first and third 90 targets than women, with second 90 achievement being equivalent. Country‐specific 90‐90‐90 regression models among OPLWH demonstrated minimal variation by age stratum across 13 countries. Among OLPWH, no first 90 target differences were noted by age strata; three countries varied in the second 90 by older age strata but not in a consistent direction; one country showed higher achievement of the third 90 in an older age stratum.ConclusionsWhile OPLWH in these 13 countries were slightly more likely than younger people to be aware of their HIV‐positive status (first 90), this target was not achieved in most countries. However, OPLWH achieved treatment (second 90) and VL suppression (third 90) targets in more countries than PLWH <50. Findings support expanded HIV testing, prevention and treatment services to meet ongoing OPLWH health needs in SSA.

AbstractIntroductionThe potential disruption in antiretroviral therapy (ART) services in Africa at the start of the COVID‐19 pandemic raised concern for increased morbidity and mortality among people living with HIV (PLHIV). We describe HIV treatment trends before and during the pandemic and interventions implemented to mitigate COVID‐19 impact among countries supported by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) through the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR).MethodsWe analysed quantitative and qualitative data reported by 10,387 PEPFAR‐CDC‐supported ART sites in 19 African countries between October 2019 and March 2021. Trends in PLHIV on ART, new ART initiations and treatment interruptions were assessed. Viral load coverage (testing of eligible PLHIV) and viral suppression were calculated at select time points. Qualitative data were analysed to summarize facility‐ and community‐based interventions implemented to mitigate COVID‐19.ResultsThe total number of PLHIV on ART increased quarterly from October 2019 (n = 7,540,592) to March 2021 (n = 8,513,572). The adult population (≥15 years) on ART increased by 14.0% (7,005,959–7,983,793), while the paediatric population (<15 years) on ART declined by 2.6% (333,178–324,441). However, the number of new ART initiations dropped between March 2020 and June 2020 by 23.4% for adults and 26.1% for children, with more rapid recovery in adults than children from September 2020 onwards. Viral load coverage increased slightly from April 2020 to March 2021 (75–78%) and viral load suppression increased from October 2019 to March 2021 (91–94%) among adults and children combined. The most reported interventions included multi‐month dispensing (MMD) of ART, community service delivery expansion, and technology and virtual platforms use for client engagement and site‐level monitoring. MMD of ≥3 months increased from 52% in October 2019 to 78% of PLHIV ≥ age 15 on ART in March 2021.ConclusionsWith an overall increase in the number of people on ART, HIV programmes proved to be resilient, mitigating the impact of COVID‐19. However, the decline in the number of children on ART warrants urgent investigation and interventions to prevent further losses experienced during the COVID‐19 pandemic and future public health emergencies.

HIV modelling and economic analyses have had a prominent role in guiding programmatic responses to HIV in sub-Saharan Africa. We reflect critically how the HIV modelling field might develop in future. We argue for HIV modelling to be more routinely aligned with national government and ministry of health priorities, recognizing their legitimate mandates and stewardship responsibilities, for HIV and other wider health programmes. We also place importance on an environment existing in which collaboration between modellers, and joint approaches to addressing modelling questions, becomes the norm rather than exception. Such an environment can accelerate translation of modelling analyses into policy formulation because areas where models agree can be prioritized for action, whereas areas over which uncertainty prevails can be slated for additional study, data collection and analysis. We also argue the need for HIV modelling to increasingly be integrated with the modelling of health needs beyond HIV, particularly in allocative efficiency analyses, where focusing on one disease over another may lead to worse health overall. Such integration may also enhance partnership with national governments whose mandates extend beyond HIV and to all of health care. Finally, we see a need for there to be substantial and equitable investment in capacity strengthening within African countries, so that African researchers will increasingly be leading modelling exercises. Building a critical mass of expertise, strengthened through external collaboration and knowledge exchange, should be the ultimate goal.