Perspectives on the utility and interest in a point-of-care urine tenofovir test for adherence to HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis and antiretroviral therapy: an exploratory qualitative assessment among U.S. clients and providers

BACKGROUND: Real-time, objective measures of adherence to antiretroviral therapy (ART) and pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) are needed to better assess adherence levels and to expedite clinical response for those with suboptimal adherence. Point-of-care tenofovir (POC-TFV) testing has been proposed as a solution to facilitate real-time antiretroviral adherence monitoring, but little is known about how health care providers, people living with HIV (PLWH) receiving ART, and people receiving PrEP will perceive POC-TFV testing. METHODS: We conducted an exploratory qualitative study to assess perspectives on the utility and interest in POC-TFV testing from potential end users. We conducted three focus group discussions (FGDs) among 17 PLWH receiving ART and four individuals receiving PrEP, as well as eight in-depth interviews (IDIs) with health care providers in the Seattle area and presented participants with a hypothetical urine-based POC-TFV test. FGDs and IDIs were audio recorded, transcribed, coded, and analyzed to describe emerging themes. RESULTS: Overall, study participants demonstrated divergent opinions about the POC-TFV test. Among study participants, PLWH were most ambivalent about POC-TFV testing, first demonstrating reluctance to TFV-level monitoring and shifting positions during the FGDs. However, all PLWH participants were receptive to POC-TFV testing if requested by their provider. PrEP participants were generally supportive of POC-TFV testing for routine adherence monitoring and emphasized potential value in self-administered testing. Providers’ perceptions were equally divided – half suggested POC-TFV testing would be valuable, particularly for people receiving PrEP, while half indicated the test would have little benefit for most individuals receiving ART or PrEP in the U.S. All providers agreed that POC-TFV test results could be beneficial for assessing discrepancies in viral load results and self-reported adherence among PLWH. The study also revealed that a low-cost, non-urine-based POC-TFV test with a long-term limit of detection would be preferred over the hypothetical urine-based test. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate POC-TFV testing may be beneficial for routine, clinic-based adherence monitoring, particularly for individuals receiving PrEP or for PLWH with persistent viremia or following recent ART initiation. These findings should also be used to formulate a target product profile for a POC-TFV test and to guide further developments in tools for objective antiretroviral adherence monitoring.