Search

IntroductionThis paper examines the extent to which an intervention succeeded in locating people who had recently become infected with HIV in the context of the large-scale Ukrainian epidemic. Locating and intervening with people who recently became infected with HIV (people with recent infection, or PwRI) can reduce forward HIV transmission and help PwRI remain healthy.MethodsThe Transmission Reduction Intervention Project (TRIP) recruited recently-infected and longer-term infected seeds in Odessa, Ukraine, in 2013 to 2016, and asked them to help recruit their extended risk network members. The proportions of network members who were PwRI were compared between TRIP arms (i.e. networks of recently-infected seeds vs. networks of longer-term infected seeds) and to the proportion of participants who were PwRI in an RDS-based Integrated Biobehavioral Surveillance of people who inject drugs in 2013.ResultsThe networks of PwRI seeds and those of longer-term infected seeds had similar (2%) proportions who were themselves PwRI. This was higher than the 0.25% proportion in IBBS (OR = 7.80; p = 0.016). The odds ratio among the subset of participants who injected drugs was 11.17 (p = 0.003). Cost comparison analyses using simplified ingredients-based methods found that TRIP spent no more than US $4513 per PwRI located whereas IBBS spent $11,924.ConclusionsFurther research is needed to confirm these results and improve TRIP further, but our findings suggest that interventions that trace the networks of people who test HIV-positive are a cost-effective way to locate PwRI and reduce HIV transmission and should therefore be implemented.

IntroductionProviding HIV healthcare and Treatment as Prevention both depend on diagnosing HIV cases, preferably soon after initial infection. We hypothesized that tracing risk networks recruits higher proportions of undiagnosed positives than outreach-based testing or respondent-driven sampling (RDS) in Odessa, Ukraine.MethodsThe Transmission Reduction Intervention Project (TRIP) used risk network tracing to recruit sexual and injection networks of recently-infected and longer-term infected (LTs) seeds (2013 to 2016). Integrated Biobehavioural Surveillance (IBBS) (2013) used RDS to recruit people who inject drugs (PWID). Outreach Testing tested PWID for HIV at community outreach sites (2013 to 2016). Proportions of undiagnosed positives among those tested were compared TRIP versus IBBS; TRIP versus Outreach Testing and between TRIP arms. Costs were compared across the projects.ResultsTRIP tested 1252 people (21% women) in seeds' risk networks; IBBS tested 400 (18% women); Outreach Testing 13,936 (31% women). TRIP networks included a higher proportion of undiagnosed positives (14.6%) than IBBS (5.0%) or Outreach Testing (2.4%); odds ratio (OR) 3.25 (95% CI 2.07, 5.12) versus IBBS and 7.03 (CI 5.95, 8.31) versus Outreach Testing respectively. Findings remained significant in analyses stratified by sex and when PWID in TRIP networks were compared with Outreach Testing and IBBS. Within TRIP, recently-infected participants' networks contained higher proportions of undiagnosed positives (16.3%) than LTs' networks (12.2%); OR 1.41 (CI 1.01, 1.95). TRIP located undiagnosed positives less expensively than did RDS or Outreach Testing.ConclusionsTRIP's recruiting techniques, including prioritizing networks of the recently infected, find undiagnosed HIV-positive people efficiently. They should be integrated with standard practice to improve case-finding. Research should test these techniques in other socio-epidemiologic contexts.Clinical trial registryRegistered ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01827228.