Point-of-care HIV RNA testing and immediate antiretroviral therapy initiation in young adults seeking out-patient care in Kenya

Effect of an opt-out point-of-care HIV-1 nucleic acid testing intervention to detect acute and prevalent HIV infection in symptomatic adult outpatients and reduce HIV transmission in Kenya: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

In sub-Saharan Africa, adult outpatients with symptoms of acute infectious illness are not routinely tested for prevalent or acute HIV infection (AHI) when seeking healthcare.

METHODS

Adult symptomatic outpatients aged 18-39 years were evaluated by a consensus AHI risk score. Patients with a risk score ≥ 2 and no previous HIV diagnosis were enrolled in a stepped-wedge trial of opt-out delivery of point-of-care (POC) HIV-1 nucleic acid testing (NAAT), compared with standard provider-initiated HIV testing using rapid tests in the observation period. The primary outcome was the number of new diagnoses in each study period. Generalized estimating equations with a log-binomial link and robust variance estimates were used to account for clustering by health facility. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03508908.

RESULTS

Between 2017 and 2020, 13 (0.9%) out of 1374 participants in the observation period and 37 (2.5%) out of 1500 participants in the intervention period were diagnosed with HIV infection. Of the 37 newly diagnosed cases in the intervention period, two (5.4%) had AHI. Participants in the opt-out intervention had a two-fold greater odds of being diagnosed with HIV (odds ratio = 2.2, 95% confidence interval: 1.39-3.51) after adjustment for factors imbalanced across study periods.

CONCLUSIONS

Among symptomatic adults aged 18-39 years targeted by our POC NAAT intervention, we identified one chronic HIV infection for every 40 patients and one AHI patient for every 750 patients tested. Although AHI yield was low in this population, routinely offered opt-out testing could diagnose twice as many patients as an approach relying on provider discretion.

Inferring population HIV incidence trends from surveillance data of recent HIV infection among HIV testing clients

BACKGROUND

Measuring recent HIV infections from routine surveillance systems could allow timely and granular monitoring of HIV incidence patterns. We evaluated the relationship of two recent infection indicators with alternative denominators to true incidence patterns.

METHODS

We used a mathematical model of HIV testing behaviours, calibrated to population-based surveys and HIV testing services programme data, to estimate the number of recent infections diagnosed annually from 2010 to 2019 in Côte d'Ivoire, Malawi, and Mozambique. We compared two different denominators to interpret recency data: those at risk of HIV acquisition (HIV-negative tests and recent infections) and all people testing HIV positive. Sex and age-specific longitudinal trends in both interpretations were then compared with modelled trends in HIV incidence, testing efforts and HIV positivity among HIV testing services clients.

RESULTS

Over 2010-2019, the annual proportion of the eligible population tested increased in all countries, while positivity decreased. The proportion of recent infections among those at risk of HIV acquisition decreased, similar to declines in HIV incidence among adults (≥15 years old). Conversely, the proportion of recent infections among HIV-positive tests increased. The female-to-male ratio of the proportion testing recent among those at risk was closer to 1 than the true incidence sex ratio.

CONCLUSION

The proportion of recent infections among those at risk of HIV acquisition is more indicative of HIV incidence than the proportion among HIV-positive tests. However, interpreting the observed patterns as surrogate measures for incidence patterns may still be confounded by different HIV testing rates between population groups or over time.

High patient acceptability but low coverage of provider-initiated HIV testing among adult outpatients with symptoms of acute infectious illness in coastal Kenya

Background

Only approximately one in five adults are offered HIV testing by providers when seeking care for symptoms of acute illness in Sub-Saharan Africa. Our aims were to estimate testing coverage and identify predictors of provider-initiated testing and counselling (PITC) and barriers to PITC implementation in this population.

Methods

We assessed HIV testing coverage among adult outpatients 18–39 years of age at four public and two private health facilities in coastal Kenya, during a 3- to 6-month surveillance period at each facility. A subset of patients who reported symptoms including fever, diarrhoea, fatigue, body aches, sore throat or genital ulcers were enrolled to complete a questionnaire independently of PITC offer. We assessed predictors of PITC in this population using generalised estimating equations and identified barriers to offering PITC through focus group discussion with healthcare workers (HCW) at each facility.

Results

Overall PITC coverage was 13.7% (1600 of 11,637 adults tested), with 1.9% (30) testing positive. Among 1,374 participants enrolled due to symptoms, 378 (27.5%) were offered PITC and 352 (25.6%) were tested, of whom 3.7% (13) tested positive. Among participants offered HIV testing, 93.1% accepted it; among participants not offered testing, 92.8% would have taken an HIV test if offered. The odds of completed PITC were increased among older participants (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.4–2.1 for 30–39 years, relative to 18–24 years), men (aOR 1.3, 95% CI 1.1–1.7); casual labourers (aOR 1.3, 95% CI 1.0–1.7); those paying by cash (aOR 1.2, 95% CI 1.0–1.4) or insurance (aOR 3.0, 95% CI 1.5–5.8); participants with fever (aOR 1.5, 95% CI 1.2–1.8) or genital ulcers (aOR 4.0, 95% CI 2.7–6.0); and who had tested for HIV >1 year ago (aOR 1.4, 95% CI 1.0–2.0) or had never tested (aOR 2.2, 95% CI 1.5–3.1). Provider barriers to PITC implementation included lack of HCW knowledge and confidence implementing guidelines, limited capacity and health systems constraints.

Conclusion

PITC coverage was low, though most patients would accept testing if offered. Missed opportunities to promote testing during care-seeking were common and innovative solutions are needed.

Rapid diagnostic tests for infectious diseases in the emergency department

Background

Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for infectious diseases, with a turnaround time of less than 2 hours, are promising tools that could improve patient care, antimicrobial stewardship and infection prevention in the emergency department (ED) setting. Numerous RDTs have been developed, although not necessarily for the ED environment. Their successful implementation in the ED relies on their performance and impact on patient management.

Objectives

The aim of this narrative review was to provide an overview of currently available RDTs for infectious diseases in the ED.

Sources

PubMed was searched through August 2019 for available studies on RDTs for infectious diseases. Inclusion criteria included: commercial tests approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or Conformité Européenne (CE) in vitro diagnostic devices with data on clinical samples, ability to run on fully automated systems and result delivery within 2 hours.

Content

A nonexhaustive list of representative commercially available FDA- or CE-approved assays was categorized by clinical syndrome: pharyngitis and upper respiratory tract infection, lower respiratory tract infection, gastrointestinal infection, meningitis and encephalitis, fever in returning travellers and sexually transmitted infection, including HIV. The performance of tests was described on the basis of clinical validation studies. Further, their impact on clinical outcomes and anti-infective use was discussed with a focus on ED-based studies.

Implications

Clinicians should be familiar with the distinctive features of each RDT and individual performance characteristics for each target. Their integration into ED work flow should be preplanned considering local constraints of given settings. Additional clinical studies are needed to further evaluate their clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.