Cargando…

Cost-Effectiveness of Peer-Delivered HIV Self-Tests for MSM in Uganda

Introduction: Distribution of HIV self-testing (HIVST) kits through MSM peer networks is a novel and effective strategy to increase HIV testing coverage in this high-risk population. No study has evaluated the cost or cost effectiveness of peer distribution of HIVST strategies among MSM in sub-Sahar...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Okoboi, Stephen, Castelnuovo, Barbara, Van Geertruyden, Jean-Pierre, Lazarus, Oucul, Vu, Lung, Kalibala, Sam, Kamara, Yvonne, Ochanda, Perez N., King, Rachel, Mujugira, Andrew
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8010300/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33816426
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.651325
_version_ 1783673034160209920
author Okoboi, Stephen
Castelnuovo, Barbara
Van Geertruyden, Jean-Pierre
Lazarus, Oucul
Vu, Lung
Kalibala, Sam
Kamara, Yvonne
Ochanda, Perez N.
King, Rachel
Mujugira, Andrew
author_facet Okoboi, Stephen
Castelnuovo, Barbara
Van Geertruyden, Jean-Pierre
Lazarus, Oucul
Vu, Lung
Kalibala, Sam
Kamara, Yvonne
Ochanda, Perez N.
King, Rachel
Mujugira, Andrew
author_sort Okoboi, Stephen
collection PubMed
description Introduction: Distribution of HIV self-testing (HIVST) kits through MSM peer networks is a novel and effective strategy to increase HIV testing coverage in this high-risk population. No study has evaluated the cost or cost effectiveness of peer distribution of HIVST strategies among MSM in sub-Saharan Africa. Methods: From June to August 2018, we conducted a pilot study of secondary MSM peer HIVST kit distribution at The AIDS Support Organization at Entebbe and Masaka. We used an ingredients approach to estimate the cost of MSM peer HIVST kit distribution relative to standard-of-care (SOC) hotspot testing using programme expenditure data reported in US dollars. The provider perspective was used to estimate incremental cost-effective ratios per HIV infection averted using the difference in HIV annual transmission rates between MSM with HIV who knew their status and were not virologically suppressed and MSM with HIV who did not know their status. Results: We enrolled 297 participants of whom 150 received MSM peer HIVST kit distribution (intervention group) and 147 received TASO standard of care HIV testing (control group). Provider cost for the intervention was $2,276 compared with $1,827 for SOC during the 3-month study period. Overall, the intervention resulted in higher HIV positivity yield (4.9 vs. 1.4%) and averted more HIV infections per quarter (0.364 vs. 0.104) compared with SOC. The cost per person tested was higher for the intervention compared to SOC ($15.90 vs. $12.40). Importantly, the cost per new HIV diagnosis ($325 vs. $914) and cost per transmission averted ($6,253 vs. $ 17,567) were lower for the intervention approach relative to SOC. The incremental cost per HIV transmission averted by the self-testing program was $1,727. The incremental cost to providers per additional HIV-positive person identified by the intervention was $147.30. Conclusion: The intervention strategy was cost-effective, and identified more undiagnosed HIV infections than SOC hotspot testing at a cost-effectiveness threshold of US $2,129. Secondary distribution of HIVST kits through peers should further be evaluated with longer duration aimed at diagnosing 95% of all persons with HIV by 2030; the first UNAIDS 95-95-95 target.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8010300
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-80103002021-04-01 Cost-Effectiveness of Peer-Delivered HIV Self-Tests for MSM in Uganda Okoboi, Stephen Castelnuovo, Barbara Van Geertruyden, Jean-Pierre Lazarus, Oucul Vu, Lung Kalibala, Sam Kamara, Yvonne Ochanda, Perez N. King, Rachel Mujugira, Andrew Front Public Health Public Health Introduction: Distribution of HIV self-testing (HIVST) kits through MSM peer networks is a novel and effective strategy to increase HIV testing coverage in this high-risk population. No study has evaluated the cost or cost effectiveness of peer distribution of HIVST strategies among MSM in sub-Saharan Africa. Methods: From June to August 2018, we conducted a pilot study of secondary MSM peer HIVST kit distribution at The AIDS Support Organization at Entebbe and Masaka. We used an ingredients approach to estimate the cost of MSM peer HIVST kit distribution relative to standard-of-care (SOC) hotspot testing using programme expenditure data reported in US dollars. The provider perspective was used to estimate incremental cost-effective ratios per HIV infection averted using the difference in HIV annual transmission rates between MSM with HIV who knew their status and were not virologically suppressed and MSM with HIV who did not know their status. Results: We enrolled 297 participants of whom 150 received MSM peer HIVST kit distribution (intervention group) and 147 received TASO standard of care HIV testing (control group). Provider cost for the intervention was $2,276 compared with $1,827 for SOC during the 3-month study period. Overall, the intervention resulted in higher HIV positivity yield (4.9 vs. 1.4%) and averted more HIV infections per quarter (0.364 vs. 0.104) compared with SOC. The cost per person tested was higher for the intervention compared to SOC ($15.90 vs. $12.40). Importantly, the cost per new HIV diagnosis ($325 vs. $914) and cost per transmission averted ($6,253 vs. $ 17,567) were lower for the intervention approach relative to SOC. The incremental cost per HIV transmission averted by the self-testing program was $1,727. The incremental cost to providers per additional HIV-positive person identified by the intervention was $147.30. Conclusion: The intervention strategy was cost-effective, and identified more undiagnosed HIV infections than SOC hotspot testing at a cost-effectiveness threshold of US $2,129. Secondary distribution of HIVST kits through peers should further be evaluated with longer duration aimed at diagnosing 95% of all persons with HIV by 2030; the first UNAIDS 95-95-95 target. Frontiers Media S.A. 2021-03-17 /pmc/articles/PMC8010300/ /pubmed/33816426 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.651325 Text en Copyright © 2021 Okoboi, Castelnuovo, Van Geertruyden, Lazarus, Vu, Kalibala, Kamara, Ochanda, King and Mujugira. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Public Health
Okoboi, Stephen
Castelnuovo, Barbara
Van Geertruyden, Jean-Pierre
Lazarus, Oucul
Vu, Lung
Kalibala, Sam
Kamara, Yvonne
Ochanda, Perez N.
King, Rachel
Mujugira, Andrew
Cost-Effectiveness of Peer-Delivered HIV Self-Tests for MSM in Uganda
title Cost-Effectiveness of Peer-Delivered HIV Self-Tests for MSM in Uganda
title_full Cost-Effectiveness of Peer-Delivered HIV Self-Tests for MSM in Uganda
title_fullStr Cost-Effectiveness of Peer-Delivered HIV Self-Tests for MSM in Uganda
title_full_unstemmed Cost-Effectiveness of Peer-Delivered HIV Self-Tests for MSM in Uganda
title_short Cost-Effectiveness of Peer-Delivered HIV Self-Tests for MSM in Uganda
title_sort cost-effectiveness of peer-delivered hiv self-tests for msm in uganda
topic Public Health
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8010300/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33816426
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.651325
work_keys_str_mv AT okoboistephen costeffectivenessofpeerdeliveredhivselftestsformsminuganda
AT castelnuovobarbara costeffectivenessofpeerdeliveredhivselftestsformsminuganda
AT vangeertruydenjeanpierre costeffectivenessofpeerdeliveredhivselftestsformsminuganda
AT lazarusoucul costeffectivenessofpeerdeliveredhivselftestsformsminuganda
AT vulung costeffectivenessofpeerdeliveredhivselftestsformsminuganda
AT kalibalasam costeffectivenessofpeerdeliveredhivselftestsformsminuganda
AT kamarayvonne costeffectivenessofpeerdeliveredhivselftestsformsminuganda
AT ochandaperezn costeffectivenessofpeerdeliveredhivselftestsformsminuganda
AT kingrachel costeffectivenessofpeerdeliveredhivselftestsformsminuganda
AT mujugiraandrew costeffectivenessofpeerdeliveredhivselftestsformsminuganda