Search

In September 2022, CDC funded a nationwide program, Together TakeMeHome (TTMH), to expand distribution of HIV self-tests (HIVSTs) directly to consumers by mail through an online ordering portal. To publicize the availability of HIVSTs to priority audiences, particularly those disproportionately affected by HIV, CDC promoted this program through established partnerships and tailored resources from its Let's Stop HIV Together social marketing campaign. The online portal launched March 14, 2023, and through March 13, 2024, distributed 443,813 tests to 219,360 persons. Among 169,623 persons who answered at least one question on a postorder questionnaire, 67.9% of respondents were from priority audiences, 24.1% had never previously received testing for HIV, and 24.8% had not received testing in the past year. Among the subset of participants who initiated a follow-up survey, 88.3% used an HIVST themselves, 27.1% gave away an HIVST, 11.7% accessed additional preventive services, and 1.9% reported a new positive HIVST result. Mailed HIVST distribution can quickly reach large numbers of persons who have never received testing for HIV or have not received testing as often as is recommended. TTMH can help to achieve the goal of diagnosing HIV as early as possible and provides a path to other HIV prevention and care services. Clinicians, community organizations, and public health officials should be aware of HIVST programs, initiate discussions about HIV testing conducted outside their clinics or offices, and initiate follow-up services for persons who report a positive or negative HIVST result. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) self-testing has emerged as a tool to increase the proportion of people to know their status. Since the first HIV self-test was approved in 2012 by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), global access to HIV self-tests has been bolstered by public-private partnerships to ensure equitable access in low- and middle-income countries. However, no company has applied for FDA clearance in a decade. We highlight the potential benefits to reclassifying HIV self-tests from class III to class II. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: This study aims to assess the public health impact of eliminating a longstanding routine HIV screening program and replacing it with targeted testing. In addition, costs, outcomes, and cost effectiveness of routine screening are compared with those of targeted testing in the Fulton County Jail, Atlanta, Georgia.Methods: A published mathematical model was used to assess the cost effectiveness and public health impact of routine screening (March 2013-February 2014) compared with those of targeted testing (January 2018-December 2018) from a health system perspective. Costs, outcomes, and other model inputs were derived from the testing programs and the published literature, and the cost effectiveness analysis was conducted from 2019 to 2020.Results: Routine screening identified 74 more new HIV infections over 1 year than targeted testing, resulting in an estimated 10 HIV transmissions averted and 45 quality-adjusted life-years saved, and was cost saving. The missed opportunity to diagnose infections because routine screening was eliminated resulted in an estimated 8.4 additional HIV transmissions and $3.7 million in additional costs to the healthcare system.Conclusions: Routine HIV screening in high-prevalence jails is cost effective and has a larger impact on public health than targeted testing. Prioritizing sustained funding for routine, jail-based HIV screening programs in high-prevalence areas may be important to realizing the national HIV prevention goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The objectives of this study were to describe preincarceration risk behaviors of young men and identify correlates of unprotected sex with multiple partners during the 3 months before incarceration. Study: Data on preincarceration risk behaviors were obtained from 550 men, aged 18 to 29 years, in state prisons in California, Mississippi, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. Correlates of unprotected sex with multiple partners were determined by logistic regression. Results: Of 550 participants, 71% had multiple sex partners, 65.1% had sex with a partner they perceived as risky, and 45.3% engaged in unprotected sex with multiple partners. Men who drank heavily (odds ratio [OR], 1.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11–2.54) or who had a risky partner (OR, 3.90; 95% CI, 2.60–5.85) were more likely to report unprotected sex with multiple partners. Men who attended religious gatherings (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.46–0.96) or lived in stable housing (OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48–1.00) were less likely to report unprotected sex with multiple partners. Conclusions: Most participants engaged in behaviors that could result in a sexually transmitted disease, including HIV. Prevention programs should address the relationship between heavy alcohol use and risky sexual behavior. Discharge planning should address housing needs. Faith-based community organizations may play an important role for some young men in their transition to the community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A longitudinal study of demographic and behavioural characteristics associated with risky sexual behaviours of young men after release from prison. One hundred and six men were interviewed in prison and at one week and six months after release. Overall, 37% reported a previous sexually transmitted disease (STD) diagnosis. In the 30 days before incarceration, 33% had had sex with a risky partner, and 59% had had multiple female sex partners. After release, 38 (36%) men reported having had risky sex (⩾2 female sex partners and unprotected vaginal sex): 12 (13%) at one week and 31 (34%) at six months. The only factor independently associated with risky sex was the use of alcohol/drugs before sex: one-week odds ratio (OR)=6.11 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.42-26.40), six-month OR=3.05 (95% CI: 1.30-9.42). Behavioural intervention programmes for incarcerated men should address drug and alcohol use and its contribution to higher risk for HIV and STDs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is wide variation in reported risk factors for HIV incidence among injecting drug users by community. Available HIV seroprevalence and incidence data indicate that nearly 60% of HIV infection is associated with injecting drug use in Connecticut and 48% in Massachusetts. Using 12-month follow-up data on 354 initially HIV-negative New England (Massachusetts and Connecticut) methadone treatment clients, we assessed the association between baseline drug use practices, sexual behavior, partner behaviors, and client-reported HIV infection during follow-up. Variables that predicted client-reported positive HIV antibody test results were modeled by Cox proportional hazards regression. HIV infection among those tested was 14.2 per 100 person years (PY) [95% Confidence interval (CI) = 9.5 to 21.3]. For each injection the relative risk (RR) was 1.1 (95% CI = 1.1 to 1.2), for males 3.0 (95% CI = 1.2 to 7.3), for blacks 5.0 (95% CI = 1.6 to 15.5), for Hispanics 3.6 (95% CI = 1.2 to 10.5). Men who used more than one unclean needle per day and had an HIV-infected steady partner had an RR of 28.4 (95% CI = 4.4 to 176.4). For women, using speedball (RR = 6.1, 95% CI = 1.2 to 38.8) and being black (RR = 4.4, 95% CI = 1.0 to 19.8) predicted self-reported HIV infection; having a steady partner who ever injected increased this risk substantially (RR = 65.3, 95% CI = 4.0 to 1046.5). These findings for IDUs in Massachusetts and Connecticut indicate that risk factors for HIV infection for men are consistent with expected transmission by unclean needles with an HIV-infected partner, but a preference for using speedball predicted HIV infection among women IDUs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: HIV testing is an essential prerequisite for accessing treatment with antiretroviral therapy or prevention using pre‐exposure prophylaxis. Internet distribution of HIV self‐tests is a novel approach, and data on the programmatic cost of this approach are limited. We analyse the costs and cost‐effectiveness of a self‐testing programme. Methods: Men who have sex with men (MSM) reporting unknown or negative HIV status were enrolled from March to August 2015 into a 12‐month trial of HIV self‐testing in the United States. Participants were randomly assigned either to the self‐testing arm or the control arm. All participants received information on HIV testing services and locations in their community. Self‐testing participants received up to four self‐tests each quarter, which they could use themselves or distribute to their social network associates. Quarterly follow‐up surveys collected testing outcomes, including number of tests used and new HIV diagnoses. Using trial expenditure data, we estimated the cost of implementing a self‐testing programme. Primary outcomes of this analysis included total programme implementation costs, cost per self‐test completed, cost per person tested, cost per new HIV diagnosis among those self‐tested and cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) saved. Results: A total of 2665 men were assigned either to the self‐testing arm (n = 1325) or the control arm (n = 1340). HIV testing was reported by 971 self‐testing participants who completed a total of 5368 tests. In the control arm, 619 participants completed 1463 HIV tests. The self‐testing participants additionally distributed 2864 self‐tests to 2152 social network associates. Testing during the trial identified 59 participants and social network associates with newly diagnosed HIV infection in the self‐testing arm; 11 control participants were newly diagnosed with HIV. The implementation cost of the HIV self‐testing programme was $449,510. The cost per self‐test completed, cost per person tested at least once, and incremental cost per new HIV diagnosis was $61, $145 and $9365 respectively. We estimated that self‐testing programme potentially averted 3.34 transmissions, saved 14.86 QALYs and nearly $1.6 million lifetime HIV treatment costs. Conclusions: The HIV self‐testing programme identified persons with newly diagnosed HIV infection at low cost, and the programme is cost saving. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]