Background We update a previous systematic review to inform new World Health Organization HIV self-testing (HIVST) recommendations. We compared the effects of HIVST to standard HIV testing services to understand which service delivery models are effective for key populations. Methods We did a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which compared HIVST to standard HIV testing in key populations, published from 1 January 2006 to 4 June 2019 in PubMed, Embase, Global Index Medicus, Social Policy and Practice, PsycINFO, Health Management Information Consortium, EBSCO CINAHL Plus, Cochrane Library and Web of Science. We extracted study characteristic and outcome data and conducted risk of bias assessments using the Cochrane ROB tool version 1. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted, and pooled effect estimates were assessed along with other evidence characteristics to determine the overall strength of the evidence using GRADE methodology. Results After screening 5909 titles and abstracts, we identified 10 RCTs which reported on testing outcomes. These included 9679 participants, of whom 5486 were men who have sex with men (MSM), 72 were trans people and 4121 were female sex workers. Service delivery models included facility-based, online/mail and peer distribution. Support components were highly diverse and ranged from helplines to training and supervision. HIVST increased testing uptake by 1.45 times (RR=1.45 95% CI 1.20, 1.75). For MSM and small numbers of trans people, HIVST increased the mean number of HIV tests by 2.56 over follow-up (mean difference = 2.56; 95% CI 1.24, 3.88). There was no difference between HIVST and SoC in regard to positivity among tested overall (RR = 0.91; 95% CI 0.73, 1.15); in sensitivity analysis of positivity among randomised HIVST identified significantly more HIV infections among MSM and trans people (RR = 2.21; 95% CI 1.20, 4.08) and in online/mail distribution systems (RR = 2.21; 95% CI 1.14, 4.32). Yield of positive results in FSW was not significantly different between HIVST and SoC. HIVST reduced linkage to care by 17% compared to SoC overall (RR = 0.83; 95% CI 0.74, 0.92). Impacts on STI testing were mixed; two RCTs showed no decreases in STI testing while one showed significantly lower STI testing in the intervention arm. There were no negative impacts on condom use (RR = 0.95; 95% CI 0.83, 1.08), and social harm was very rare. Conclusions HIVST is safe and increases testing uptake and frequency as well as yield of positive results for MSM and trans people without negative effects on linkage to HIV care, STI testing, condom use or social harm. Testing uptake was increased for FSW, yield of positive results were not and linkage to HIV care was worse. Strategies to improve linkage to care outcomes for both groups are crucial for effective roll-out.

IntroductionInnovative strategies, such as HIV self-testing (HIVST), could increase HIV testing rates and diagnosis. Evidence to inform the design of an HIVST intervention in the UK is scarce with very little European data on this topic. This study aims to understand values and preferences for HIVST interventions targeting MSM in the UK. We explore the acceptability of HIVST among MSM in the context of known barriers and facilitators to testing for HIV; assess preferences for, and the concerns about, HIVST.MethodsSix focus group discussions (FGD) were conducted with 47 MSM in London, Manchester and Plymouth. HIVST as a concept was discussed and participants were asked to construct their ideal HIVST intervention. OraQuickTM and BioSureTM kits were then demonstrated and participants commented on procedure, design and instructions. FGDs were recorded and transcribed verbatim, then analysed thematically.ResultsConvenience and confidentiality of HIVST was seen to facilitate testing. Issues with domestic privacy problematised confidentiality. HIVST kits and instructions were thought to be unnecessarily complicated, and did not cater to the required range of abilities. The window period was the most important element of an HIVST, with strong preference for 4th generation testing. Kits which used a blood sample were more popular than those using saliva due to higher perceived accuracy although phobia of needles and/or blood meant some would only access HIVST if a saliva sample option was available. A range of access options was important to maintain convenience and privacy. HIVST kits were assumed to increase frequency of testing, with concerns related to the dislocation of HIVST from sexual health care pathways and services.DiscussionUtility of HIVST arises from relatively high levels of confidentiality and convenience. Until 4th generation assays are available HIVST will be seen as supplementary in a UK context.

ObjectivesThe British HIV Association's (BHIVA) testing guidelines recommend men who have sex with men (MSM) test annually or more frequently if ongoing risk is present. We identify which groups of MSM in England are less likely to have tested for HIV and their preferences for future tests by testing model, in order to inform health promotion programmes.MethodsData come from the Gay Men's Sex Survey 2014, a cross-sectional survey of MSM, aged 16 years or older and living in the UK. Only men who did not have diagnosed HIV and were living in England were included in this analysis. We used logistic regression models to understand how social determinants of health were associated with not testing for HIV in the past 12 months, and never having tested. We then cross-tabulated preferred testing location by demographic characteristics.ResultsYounger men, older men and men who were not gay identified were least likely to have tested for HIV. Higher educational attainment, migrancy, Black ethnicity and being at higher of risk were associated with greater levels of HIV testing. Men who were less likely to have tested for HIV preferred a wider range of options for future HIV testing.ConclusionsIf the BHIVA's HIV testing policy of 2008 was used to guide testing priorities among MSM focus would be on increasing the rate of annual testing among MSM at less risk of HIV (ie, younger men, older men and non-gay identified MSM). Instead the promotion of more frequent testing among the groups most at risk of infection should be prioritised in order to reduce the time between infection and diagnosis.

Background: We updated a 2017 systematic review and compared the effects of HIV self-testing (HIVST) to standard HIV testing services to understand effective service delivery models among the general population. Methods: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing testing outcomes with HIVST to standard testing in the general population and published between January 1, 2006 and June 4, 2019. Random effects meta-analysis was conducted and pooled risk ratios (RRs) were reported. The certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE methodology. Findings: We identified 14 eligible RCTs, 13 of which were conducted in sub-Saharan Africa. Support provided to self-testers ranged from no/basic support to one-on-one in-person support. HIVST increased testing uptake overall (RR:2.09; 95% confidence interval: 1.69À2.58; p < 0.0001;13 RCTs; moderate certainty evidence) and by service delivery model including facility-based distribution, HIVST use at facilities, secondary distribution to partners, and community-based distribution. The number of persons diagnosed HIV-positive among those tested (RR:0.81, 0.45À1.47; p = 0.50; 8 RCTs; moderate certainty evidence) and number linked to HIV care/ treatment among those diagnosed (RR:0.95, 0.79À1.13; p = 0.52; 6 RCTs; moderate certainty evidence) were similar between HIVST and standard testing. Reported harms/adverse events with HIVST were rare and appeared similar to standard testing (RR:2.52: 0.52À12.13; p = 0.25; 4 RCTs; very low certainty evidence). Interpretation: HIVST appears to be safe and effective among the general population in sub-Saharan Africa with a range of delivery models. It identified and linked additional people with HIV to care. These findings support the wider availability of HIVST to reach those who may not otherwise access testing.