Suchergebnisse

AbstractIntroductionAntiretroviral‐based HIV prevention, including pre‐exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), is expanding in generalized epidemic settings, but additional prevention options are needed for individuals with periodic, high‐risk sexual exposures. Non‐occupational post‐exposure prophylaxis (PEP) is recommended in global guidelines. However, in Africa, awareness of and access to PEP for sexual exposures are limited. We assessed feasibility, acceptability, uptake and adherence in a pilot study of a patient‐centred PEP programme with options for facility‐ or community‐based service delivery.MethodsAfter population‐level HIV testing with universal access to PrEP for persons at elevated HIV risk (SEARCH Trial:NCT01864603), we conducted a pilot PEP study in five rural communities in Kenya and Uganda between December 2018 and May 2019. We assessed barriers to PEP in the population and implemented an intervention to address these barriers, building on existing in‐country PEP protocols. We used community leaders for sensitization. Test kits and medications were acquired through the Ministry of Health supply chain and healthcare providers based at the Ministry of Health clinics were trained on PEP delivery. Additional intervention components were (a)PEP availability seven days/week, (b)PEP hotline staffed by providers and (c)option for out‐of‐facility medication delivery. We assessed implementation using the Proctor framework and measured seroconversions via repeat HIV testing. Successful "PEP completion" was defined as self‐reported adherence over four weeks of therapy with post‐PEP HIV testing.ResultsCommunity leaders were able to sensitize and mobilize for PEP. The Ministry of Health supplied test kits and PEP medications; after training, healthcare providers delivered the 28‐day regimen with high completion rates. Among 124 persons who sought PEP, 66% were female, 24% were ≤25 years and 42% were fisherfolk. Of these, 20% reported exposure with a serodifferent partner, 72% with a new or existing relationship and 7% from transactional sex. 12% of all visits were conducted at out‐of‐facility community‐based sites; 35% of participants had ≥1 out‐of‐facility visit. No serious adverse events were reported. Overall, 85% met the definition of PEP completion. There were no HIV seroconversions.ConclusionsAmong individuals with elevated‐risk exposures in rural East African communities, patient‐centred PEP was feasible, acceptable and provides a promising addition to the current prevention toolkit.

AbstractIntroductionOptimizing HIV prevention may require structured approaches for providing client‐centred choices as well as community‐based entry points and delivery. We evaluated the effect of a dynamic choice model for HIV prevention, delivered by community health workers (CHWs) with clinician support, on the use of biomedical prevention among persons at risk of HIV in rural East Africa.MethodsWe conducted a cluster randomized trial among persons (≥15 years) with current or anticipated HIV risk in 16 villages in Uganda and Kenya (SEARCH; NCT04810650). The intervention was a client‐centred HIV prevention model, including (1) structured client choice of product (pre‐exposure prophylaxis [PrEP] or post‐exposure prophylaxis [PEP]), service location (clinic or out‐of‐clinic) and HIV testing modality (self‐test or rapid test), with the ability to switch over time; (2) a structured assessment of patient barriers and development of a personalized support plan; and (3) phone access to a clinician 24/7. The intervention was delivered by CHWs and supported by clinicians who oversaw PrEP and PEP initiation and monitoring. Participants in control villages were referred to local health facilities for HIV prevention services, delivered by Ministry of Health staff. The primary outcome was biomedical prevention coverage: a proportion of 48‐week follow‐up with self‐reported PrEP or PEP use.ResultsFrom May to July 2021, we enrolled 429 people (212 intervention; 217 control): 57% women and 35% aged 15–24 years. Among intervention participants, 58% chose PrEP and 58% chose PEP at least once over follow‐up; self‐testing increased from 52% (baseline) to 71% (week 48); ≥98% chose out‐of‐facility service delivery. Among 413 (96%) participants with the primary outcome ascertained, average biomedical prevention coverage was 28.0% in the intervention versus 0.5% in the control: a difference of 27.5% (95% CI: 23.0–31.9%, p<0.001). Impact was larger during periods of self‐reported HIV risk: 36.6% coverage in intervention versus 0.9% in control, a difference of 35.7% (95% CI: 27.5–43.9, p<0.001). Intervention effects were seen across subgroups defined by sex, age group and alcohol use.ConclusionsA client‐centred dynamic choice HIV prevention intervention, including the option to switch between products and CHW‐based delivery in the community, increased biomedical prevention coverage by 27.5%. However, substantial person‐time at risk of HIV remained uncovered.