David A Katz1, Susan L Cassels, Joanne D Stekler. 1. From the Departments of *Medicine, †Epidemiology, and ‡Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; and §HIV/STD Program, Public Health-Seattle & King County, Seattle, WA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Home-use tests have potential to increase HIV testing but may increase the rate of false-negative tests and decrease linkage to HIV care. We sought to estimate the impact of replacing clinic-based testing with home-use tests on HIV prevalence among men who have sex with men (MSM) in Seattle, Washington. METHODS: We adapted a deterministic, continuous-time model of HIV transmission dynamics parameterized using a 2003 random digit dial study of Seattle MSM. Test performance was based on the OraQuick In-Home HIV Test (OraSure Technologies, Inc, Bethlehem, PA) for home-use tests and, on an average, of antigen-antibody combination assays and nucleic acid amplification tests for clinic-based testing. RESULTS: Based on observed levels of clinic-based testing, our baseline model predicted an equilibrium HIV prevalence of 18.6%. If all men replaced clinic-based testing with home-use tests, prevalence increased to 27.5% if home-use testing did not impact testing frequency and to 22.4% if home-use testing increased testing frequency 3-fold. Regardless of how much home-use testing increased testing frequency, any replacement of clinic-based testing with home-use testing increased prevalence. These increases in HIV prevalence were mostly caused by the relatively long window period of the currently approved test. If the window period of a home-use test were 2 months instead of 3 months, prevalence would decrease if all MSM replaced clinic-based testing with home-use tests and tested more than 2.6 times more frequently. CONCLUSIONS: Our model suggests that if home-use HIV tests replace supplement clinic-based testing, HIV prevalence may increase among Seattle MSM, even if home-use tests result in increased testing.
BACKGROUND: Home-use tests have potential to increase HIV testing but may increase the rate of false-negative tests and decrease linkage to HIV care. We sought to estimate the impact of replacing clinic-based testing with home-use tests on HIV prevalence among men who have sex with men (MSM) in Seattle, Washington. METHODS: We adapted a deterministic, continuous-time model of HIV transmission dynamics parameterized using a 2003 random digit dial study of Seattle MSM. Test performance was based on the OraQuick In-Home HIV Test (OraSure Technologies, Inc, Bethlehem, PA) for home-use tests and, on an average, of antigen-antibody combination assays and nucleic acid amplification tests for clinic-based testing. RESULTS: Based on observed levels of clinic-based testing, our baseline model predicted an equilibrium HIV prevalence of 18.6%. If all men replaced clinic-based testing with home-use tests, prevalence increased to 27.5% if home-use testing did not impact testing frequency and to 22.4% if home-use testing increased testing frequency 3-fold. Regardless of how much home-use testing increased testing frequency, any replacement of clinic-based testing with home-use testing increased prevalence. These increases in HIV prevalence were mostly caused by the relatively long window period of the currently approved test. If the window period of a home-use test were 2 months instead of 3 months, prevalence would decrease if all MSM replaced clinic-based testing with home-use tests and tested more than 2.6 times more frequently. CONCLUSIONS: Our model suggests that if home-use HIV tests replace supplement clinic-based testing, HIV prevalence may increase among Seattle MSM, even if home-use tests result in increased testing.
Authors: Eberhard W Fiebig; David J Wright; Bhupat D Rawal; Patricia E Garrett; Richard T Schumacher; Lorraine Peddada; Charles Heldebrant; Richard Smith; Andrew Conrad; Steven H Kleinman; Michael P Busch Journal: AIDS Date: 2003-09-05 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Travis C Porco; Jeffrey N Martin; Kimberly A Page-Shafer; Amber Cheng; Edwin Charlebois; Robert M Grant; Dennis H Osmond Journal: AIDS Date: 2004-01-02 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: M P Busch; L L Lee; G A Satten; D R Henrard; H Farzadegan; K E Nelson; S Read; R Y Dodd; L R Petersen Journal: Transfusion Date: 1995-02 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: David A Katz; Julia C Dombrowski; Fred Swanson; Susan E Buskin; Matthew R Golden; Joanne D Stekler Journal: Sex Transm Infect Date: 2012-05-05 Impact factor: 3.519
Authors: Jonathan E Volk; Sheri A Lippman; Beatriz Grinsztejn; Javier R Lama; Nilo M Fernandes; Pedro Gonzales; Nancy A Hessol; Susan Buchbinder Journal: Int J STD AIDS Date: 2015-05-12 Impact factor: 1.359
Authors: Michael A Irvine; Bernhard P Konrad; Warren Michelow; Robert Balshaw; Mark Gilbert; Daniel Coombs Journal: J R Soc Interface Date: 2018-03 Impact factor: 4.118
Authors: Robin J MacGowan; Pollyanna R Chavez; Craig B Borkowf; S Michele Owen; David W Purcell; Jonathan H Mermin; Patrick S Sullivan Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2020-01-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: David A Katz; Matthew R Golden; James P Hughes; Carey Farquhar; Joanne D Stekler Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2018-08-15 Impact factor: 3.731