背景:协助伙伴服务(APS)是增加艾滋病毒检测的有效策略,新诊断,以及与艾滋病毒感染者的性伴侣之间的护理联系(PLWH)。APS可能是资源密集型的,因为它需要社区跟踪来定位每个指定的合作伙伴并为他们提供测试。提供艾滋病毒自我检测(HIVST)作为APS内合作伙伴检测的一种选择的有效性证据有限。
方法:我们在肯尼亚西部的24个医疗机构开展了一项集群随机对照试验,比较了提供者提供的HIV检测(标准APS)与向合作伙伴提供提供者提供的检测或HIVST(APS+HIVST)的选择。设施以1:1随机分组,我们使用泊松广义线性混合模型进行了意向治疗分析,以估计干预对HIV检测的影响。新的艾滋病毒诊断,以及与护理的联系。所有模型都考虑了临床级别的聚类,并且针对个人级别的年龄调整了新的诊断和联系模型,性别,和收入先验。
结果:从2021年3月到12月,755个索引客户收到了APS,并指定了5054个唯一合作伙伴。其中,报告先前HIV诊断的1408个合作伙伴不符合HIV检测的条件,因此被排除在分析之外。在剩下的3646名合伙人中,成功接触了96.9%的APS并进行了HIV检测:APS+HIVST臂中2157个中的2111个(97.9%),标准APS臂中1489个中的1422个(95.5%)。在APS+HIVST臂中,84.6%(1785/2111)通过HIVST进行了测试,15.4%(326/2111)接受了提供者提供的测试。总的来说,检测的3533人中,有16.7%新诊断为HIV(APSHIVST=357/2111[16.9%];标准APS=232/1422[16.3%])。在新诊断的589名合伙人中,90.7%与护理相关(APS+HIVST=309/357[86.6%];标准APS=225/232[97.0%])。在HIV检测中,两组之间没有显着差异(相对风险[RR]:1.02,95%CI:0.96-1.10),新的HIV诊断(调整后的RR[aRR]:1.03,95%CI:0.76-1.39)或与护理相关(aRR:0.88,95%CI:0.74-1.06)。
结论:APS+HIVST和标准APS之间没有差异,证明将HIVST纳入APS仍然是通过成功接触和艾滋病毒检测>95%的被激发合作伙伴来识别PLWH的有效策略,新诊断为艾滋病毒的人中有六分之一被测试,>90%的人与护理有关。
背景:NCT04774835。
BACKGROUND: Assisted partner services (APS) is an effective strategy for increasing HIV testing, new diagnosis, and linkage to care among sexual partners of people living with HIV (PLWH). APS can be resource intensive as it requires community tracing to locate each partner named and offer them testing. There is limited evidence for the effectiveness of offering HIV self-testing (HIVST) as an option for partner testing within APS.
METHODS: We conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial comparing provider-delivered HIV testing (Standard APS) versus offering partners the option of provider-delivered testing or HIVST (APS+HIVST) at 24 health facilities in Western Kenya. Facilities were randomized 1:1 and we conducted intent-to-treat analyses using Poisson generalized linear mixed models to estimate intervention impact on HIV testing, new HIV diagnoses, and linkage to care. All models accounted for clustering at the clinic level and new diagnoses and linkage models were adjusted for individual-level age, sex, and income a priori.
RESULTS: From March to December 2021, 755 index clients received APS and named 5054 unique partners. Among these, 1408 partners reporting a prior HIV diagnosis were not eligible for HIV testing and were excluded from analyses. Of the remaining 3646 partners, 96.9% were successfully contacted for APS and tested for HIV: 2111 (97.9%) of 2157 in the APS+HIVST arm and 1422 (95.5%) of 1489 in the Standard APS arm. In the APS+HIVST arm, 84.6% (1785/2111) tested via HIVST and 15.4% (326/2111) received provider-delivered testing. Overall, 16.7% of the 3533 who tested were newly diagnosed with HIV (APS+HIVST = 357/2111 [16.9%]; Standard APS = 232/1422 [16.3%]). Of the 589 partners who were newly diagnosed, 90.7% were linked to care (APS+HIVST = 309/357 [86.6%]; Standard APS = 225/232 [97.0%]). There were no significant differences between the two arms in HIV testing (relative risk [RR]: 1.02, 95% CI: 0.96-1.10), new HIV diagnoses (adjusted RR [aRR]: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.76-1.39) or linkage to care (aRR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.74-1.06).
CONCLUSIONS: There were no differences between APS+HIVST and Standard APS, demonstrating that integrating HIVST into APS continues to be an effective strategy for identifying PLWH by successfully reaching and HIV testing >95% of elicited partners, newly diagnosing with HIV one in six of those tested, >90% of whom were linked to care.
BACKGROUND: NCT04774835.