| Summary: | <h4>Background</h4>HIV self-testing (HIVST) is an additional approach to increasing uptake of HIV testing services. The practicability and accuracy of and the preference for the capillary blood self-test (Exacto Test HIV) versus the oral fluid self-test (OraQuick HIV self-test) were compared among untrained individuals in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).<h4>Methods</h4>This multicenter cross-sectional study (2019) used face-to-face, tablet-based, structured questionnaires in a facility-based HIVST approach. Volunteers from the general public who were at high risk of HIV infection, who were between 18 and 49 years of age, and who had signed an informed consent form were eligible for the study. The successful performance and correct interpretation of the self-test results were the main outcomes of the practicability evaluation. The successful performance of the HIV self-test was conditioned by the presence of the control band. The sensitivity and specificity of the participant-interpreted results compared to the laboratory results were estimated for accuracy. Preference for either type of self-test was assessed. Logistic regression models were used to examine factors associated with participants' preference.<h4>Results</h4>A total of 528 participants were included in this survey. The rate of successful performance of the HIV self-tests was high, with the blood test (99.6%) and the oral-fluid test (99.4%) yielding an absolute difference of 0.2% (95% CI: -1.8 to 1.1; P = 0.568). The rate of correct interpretation of the HIV self-test results was 84.4% with the blood test versus 83.8% with the oral-fluid test (difference = 0.6; 95% CI: -0.2 to 1.7; P = 0.425). Misinterpretation (25.4% for the blood test and 25.6% for the oral-fluid test) and inability to interpret (20.4% for the blood test and 21.1% for the oral-fluid test) test results were significantly more prevalent with invalid tests. The Exacto Test HIV self-test and the OraQuick HIV self-test showed 100% and 99.2% sensitivity, and 98.9% and 98.1% specificity, respectively. Preference for oral-fluid-based HIVST was greater than that for blood-based HIVST (85.6% versus 78.6%; P = 0.008). Preference for the blood test was greater among participants with a university education (86.1%; aOR = 2.4 [95% CI: 1.1 to 4.9]; P = 0.016), a higher risk of HIV infection (88.1%; aOR = 2.3 [95% CI: 1.0 to 5.3]; P = 0.047), and knowledge about the existence of HIVST (89.3%; aOR = 2.2 [95% CI: 1.0 to 5.0]; P = 0.05).<h4>Conclusion</h4>Our field observations demonstrate that blood-based and oral-fluid-based HIVST are both practicable approaches with a high and comparable rate of accuracy in the study setting. Although preference for the oral-fluid test was generally greater, preference for the blood test was greater among participants with a university education, a high risk of HIV infection, and knowledge about the existence of HIVST. Both approaches seem complementary in the sense that users can choose the type of self-test that best suits them for a similar result. Taken together, our observations support the use of the two HIV self-test kits in the DRC.
|
|---|
