Search

Background: People who inject drugs (PWID) are disproportionally affected by hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and many remain undiagnosed. HCV self-testing (HCVST) may be an effective approach to increase testing uptake, but has rarely been used among PWID. We assessed the usability and acceptability of HCVST among PWID in Kenya.Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study nested within a cohort study between August and December 2020 on Kenya's North Coast region. Participants were handed a prototype oral fluid HCVST kit and asked to conduct the test relying on the instructions for use. Usability was assessed by documenting errors made and difficulties faced by participants. Acceptability was assessed using an interviewer-administered semi-structured questionnaire.Results: Among 150 participants, 19% were female and 65.3% had primary level education or lower. 71.3% made at least one error, 56.7% experienced some difficulty during at least one step, and the majority of participants (78%) required assistance during at least one step of the procedure. Most common errors occurred when placing the tube into the stand (18%), collecting the oral fluid sample (24%) and timing of reading results (53%). There was a strong association between presence of symptoms of opiate withdrawals and observed errors (94% vs 62%; p = 0.016) in a sub-group of 74 participants assessed. Inter-reader and inter-operator concordance were 97.7% (kappa: 0.92) and 99.2% (kappa: 0.95), respectively. Acceptability assessed by asking whether participants would choose to use HCVST prior to and after conducting HCVST was 98% and 95%, respectively.Conclusions: We found a high acceptability of oral fluid HCVST among PWID. User errors were common and were associated with the presence of withdrawal symptoms among users. Despite errors, most participants were able to obtain and interpret results correctly. These findings suggest that this group of users may benefit from greater messaging and education including options to receive direct assistance when self-testing for HCV. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: HIV retesting during late pregnancy and breastfeeding can help detect new maternal infections and prevent mother‐to‐child HIV transmission (MTCT), but the optimal timing and cost‐effectiveness of maternal retesting remain uncertain. Methods: We constructed deterministic models to assess the health and economic impact of maternal HIV retesting on a hypothetical population of pregnant women, following initial testing in pregnancy, on MTCT in four countries: South Africa and Kenya (high/intermediate HIV prevalence), and Colombia and Ukraine (low HIV prevalence). We evaluated six scenarios with varying retesting frequencies from late in antenatal care (ANC) through nine months postpartum. We compared strategies using incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios (ICERs) over a 20‐year time horizon using country‐specific thresholds. Results: We found maternal retesting once in late ANC with catch‐up testing through six weeks postpartum was cost‐effective in Kenya (ICER = $166 per DALY averted) and South Africa (ICER=$289 per DALY averted). This strategy prevented 19% (Kenya) and 12% (South Africa) of infant HIV infections. Adding one or two additional retests postpartum provided smaller benefits (1 to 2 percentage point increase in infections averted versus one retest). Adding three retests during the postpartum period averted additional infections (1 to 3 percentage point increase in infections averted versus one retest) but ICERs ($7639 and in Kenya and $11 985 in South Africa) greatly exceeded the cost‐effectiveness thresholds. In Colombia and Ukraine, all retesting strategies exceeded the cost‐effectiveness threshold and prevented few infant infections (up to 31 and 5 infections, respectively). Conclusions: In high HIV burden settings with MTCT rates similar to those seen in Kenya and South Africa, HIV retesting once in late ANC, with subsequent intervention, is the most cost‐effective strategy for preventing infant HIV infections. In these settings, two HIV retests postpartum marginally reduced MTCT and were less costly than adding three retests. Retesting in low‐burden settings with MTCT rates similar to Colombia and Ukraine was not cost‐effective at any time point due to very low HIV prevalence and limited breastfeeding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Community-based oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) provision has the potential to expand PrEP coverage. HIV self-testing can facilitate PrEP community-based delivery but might have lower sensitivity than facility-based HIV testing, potentially leading to inappropriate PrEP use among people with HIV and subsequent development of drug resistance. We aimed to evaluate the impact of HIV self-testing use for PrEP scale-up., Methods: We parameterised an agent-based network model, EMOD-HIV, to simulate generic tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine PrEP scale-up in western Kenya using four testing scenarios: provider-administered nucleic acid testing, provider-administered rapid diagnostic tests detecting antibodies, blood-based HIV self-testing, or oral fluid HIV self-testing. Scenarios were compared with a no PrEP counterfactual. Individuals aged 18-49 years with one or more heterosexual partners who screened HIV-negative were eligible for PrEP. We assessed the cost and health impact of rapid PrEP scale-up with high coverage over 20 years, and the budget impact over 5 years, using various HIV testing modalities., Findings: PrEP coverage of 29% was projected to avert approximately 54% of HIV infections and 17% of HIV-related deaths among adults aged 18-49 years over 20 years; health impacts were similar across HIV testing modalities used to deliver PrEP. The percentage of HIV infections with PrEP-associated nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) drug resistance was 0·6% (95% uncertainty intervals 0·4-0·9) in the blood HIV self-testing scenario and 0·8% (0·6-1·0) in the oral HIV self-testing scenario, compared with 0·3% (0·2-0·3) in the antibody rapid diagnostic testing scenario and 0·2% (0·1-0·2) in the nucleic acid testing scenario. Accounting for background NRTI resistance, we found similarly low proportions of drug resistance across scenarios. The budget impact of implementing PrEP using HIV self-testing and provider-administered rapid diagnostic tests were similar, while nucleic acid testing was approximately 50% more costly., Interpretation: Scaling up PrEP using HIV self-testing has similar health impacts, costs, and low risk of drug resistance as provider-administered rapid diagnostic tests. Policy makers should consider leveraging HIV self-testing to expand PrEP access among those at HIV risk., Funding: The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests MS reports funding from National Institutes of Health during the conduct of this study. RB reports funds from Unitaid, United States Agency for International Development, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation awarded to WHO. JDS reports receipt of HIV diagnostic device and test kits for conduct of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-sponsored research from Diagnostics for the Real World. All other authors declare no conflicts of interests. The views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent the views, decisions or policies of the institutions with which they are affiliated., (© 2024 World Health Organization. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. This is an Open Access article published under the CC BY 3.0 IGO license which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. In any use of this article, there should be no suggestion that WHO endorses any specific organisation, products or services. The use of the WHO logo is not permitted. This notice should be preserved along with the article's original URL.)

Background: Dual HIV and syphilis testing might help to prevent mother-to-child transmission (MTCT) of HIV and syphilis through increased case detection and treatment. We aimed to model and assess the cost-effectiveness of dual testing during antenatal care in four countries with varying HIV and syphilis prevalence., Methods: In this modelling study, we developed Markov models of HIV and syphilis in pregnant women to estimate costs and infant health outcomes of maternal testing at the first antenatal care visit with individual HIV and syphilis tests (base case) and at the first antenatal care visit with a dual rapid diagnostic test (scenario one). We additionally evaluated retesting during late antenatal care and at delivery with either individual tests (scenario two) or a dual rapid diagnosis test (scenario three). We modelled four countries: South Africa, Kenya, Colombia, and Ukraine. Strategies with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) less than the country-specific cost-effectiveness threshold (US$500 in Kenya, $750 in South Africa, $3000 in Colombia, and $1000 in Ukraine) per disability-adjusted life-year averted were considered cost-effective., Findings: Routinely offering testing at the first antenatal care visit with a dual rapid diagnosis test was cost-saving compared with the base case in all four countries (ICER: -$26 in Kenya,-$559 in South Africa, -$844 in Colombia, and -$454 in Ukraine). Retesting during late antenatal care with a dual rapid diagnostic test (scenario three) was cost-effective compared with scenario one in all four countries (ICER: $270 in Kenya, $260 in South Africa, $2207 in Colombia, and $205 in Ukraine)., Interpretation: Incorporating dual rapid diagnostic tests in antenatal care can be cost-saving across countries with varying HIV prevalence. Countries should consider incorporating dual HIV and syphilis rapid diagnostic tests as the first test in antenatal care to support efforts to eliminate MTCT of HIV and syphilis., Funding: WHO, US Agency for International Development, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation., (© 2021 This is an Open Access article published under the CC BY 3.0 IGO license which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. In any use of this article, there should be no suggestion that WHO endorses any specific organisation, products or services. The use of the WHO logo is not permitted. This notice should be preserved along with the article's original URL.)