Test and Treat TB: a pilot trial of GeneXpert MTB/RIF screening on a mobile HIV testing unit in South Africa

Background

Community-based GeneXpert MTB/RIF testing may increase detection of prevalent TB in the community and improve rates of TB treatment completion.

Methods

We conducted a pilot randomized trial to evaluate the impact of GeneXpert screening on a mobile HIV testing unit. Adults (≥18y) underwent rapid HIV testing and TB symptom screening and were randomized to usual mobile unit care (providing sputum on the mobile unit sent out for GeneXpert testing) or the “Test & Treat TB” intervention with immediate GeneXpert testing. Symptomatic participants in usual care produced sputum that was sent for hospital-based GeneXpert testing; participants were contacted ~ 7 days later with results. In the “Test & Treat TB” intervention, HIV-infected or HIV-uninfected/TB symptomatic participants underwent GeneXpert testing on the mobile unit. GeneXpert+ participants received expedited TB treatment initiation, monthly SMS reminders and non-cash incentives. We assessed 6-month TB treatment outcomes.

Results

4815 were eligible and enrolled; median age was 27 years (IQR 22 to 35). TB symptoms included cough (5%), weight loss (4%), night sweats (4%), and fever (3%). 42% of eligible participants produced sputum (intervention: 56%; usual care: 26%). Seven participants tested GeneXpert+, six in the intervention (3%, 95% CI 1%, 5%) and one in usual care (1%, 95% CI 0%, 6%). 5 of 6 intervention participants completed TB treatment; the GeneXpert+ participant in usual care did not.

Conclusion

GeneXpert MTB/RIF screening on a mobile HIV testing unit is feasible. Yield for GeneXpert+ TB was low, however, the “Test & Treat TB” strategy led to high rates of TB treatment completion.

Trial registration

This study was registered on November 21, 2014 at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02298309).

Finding HIV in hard to reach populations: mobile HIV testing and geospatial mapping in Umlazi township, Durban, South Africa

Mobile, community-based HIV testing may help achieve universal HIV testing in South Africa. We compared the yield, geographic distribution, and demographic characteristics of populations tested by mobile- and clinic-based HIV testing programs deployed by iThembalabantu Clinic in Durban, South Africa. From July to November 2011, 4,701 subjects were tested; HIV prevalence was 35 % among IPHC testers and 10 % among mobile testers (p < 0.001). Mobile testers varied in mean age (22-37 years) and % males (26-67 %). HIV prevalence at mobile sites ranged from 0 to 26 %. Testers traveled further than the clinic closest to their home; mobile testers were more likely to test ≥5 km away from home. Mobile HIV testing can improve testing access and identify testing sites with high HIV prevalence. Individuals often access mobile testing sites farther from home than their nearest clinic. Geospatial techniques can help optimize deployment of mobile units to maximize yield in hard-to-reach populations.

Linkage to care following community-based mobile HIV testing compared with clinic-based testing in Umlazi Township, Durban, South Africa

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to assess HIV prevalence, disease stage and linkage to HIV care following diagnosis at a mobile HIV testing unit, compared with results for clinic-based testing, in a Durban township.

METHODS

This was a prospective cohort study. We enrolled adults presenting for HIV testing at a community-based mobile testing unit (mobile testers) and at an HIV clinic (clinic testers) serving the same area. Testers diagnosed with HIV infection, regardless of testing site, were offered immediate CD4 testing and instructed to retrieve results at the clinic. We assessed rates of linkage to care, defined as CD4 result retrieval within 90 days of HIV diagnosis and/or completion of antiretroviral therapy (ART) literacy training, for mobile vs. clinic testers.

RESULTS

From July to November 2011, 6957 subjects were HIV tested (4703 mobile and 2254 clinic); 55% were female. Mobile testers had a lower HIV prevalence than clinic testers (10% vs. 36%, respectively), were younger (median 23 vs. 27 years, respectively) and were more likely to live >5 km or >30 min from the clinic (64% vs. 40%, respectively; all P < 0.001). Mobile testers were less likely to undergo CD4 testing (33% vs. 83%, respectively) but more likely to have higher CD4 counts [median (interquartile range) 416 (287-587) cells/μL vs. 285 (136-482) cells/μL, respectively] than clinic testers (both P < 0.001). Of those who tested HIV positive, 10% of mobile testers linked to care, vs. 72% of clinic testers (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Mobile HIV testing reaches people who are younger, who are more geographically remote, and who have earlier disease compared with clinic-based testing. Fewer mobile testers underwent CD4 testing and linked to HIV care. Enhancing linkage efforts may improve the impact of mobile testing for those with early HIV disease.