Impact of HIV self-testing for oral pre-exposure prophylaxis scale-up on drug resistance and HIV outcomes in western Kenya: a modelling study.

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.)