Finding new HIV-positive cases remains a priority to achieve the UNAIDS goals. An enhanced peer outreach approach (EPOA) was implemented to expand the delivery of HIV services to female sex workers (FSWs) and men who have sex with men (MSM) in three countries in West and Central Africa. The aim of EPOA is to identify new HIV-positive cases. EPOA was implemented in Burundi among FSWs, and in Cote d’Ivoire and Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) among both FSWs and MSM. Implementation ranged from five to nine weeks and was nested within a three-month reporting period. Standard outreach was suspended for the duration of EPOA implementation but was resumed thereafter. Summary service statistics were used to compare HIV seropositivity during standard outreach and EPOA. Trends were analyzed during the quarter in which EPOA was implemented, and these were compared with the two preceding quarters. Differences in proportions of HIV seropositivity were tested using Pearson’s chi-square test; p-values of less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Overall, EPOA resulted in a higher proportion of new HIV-positive cases being found, both within and between quarters. In Burundi, HIV seropositivity among FSWs was significantly higher during EPOA than during standard outreach (10.8% vs. 4.1%, p<0.001). In Cote d’Ivoire, HIV seropositivity was significantly higher during EPOA among both populations (FSWs: 5.6% vs. 1.81%, p<0.01; MSM: 15.4% vs. 5.9%; p<0.01). In DRC, HIV seropositivity was significantly higher during EPOA among MSM (6.9% vs. 1.6%; p<0.001), but not among FSWs (5.2% vs. 4.3%; p = 0.08). Trends in HIV seropositivity during routine outreach for both populations were constant during three successive quarters but increased with the introduction of EPOA. EPOA is a public health approach with great potential for reaching new populations and ensuring that they are aware of their HIV status.

No abstract

Introduction Globally, over half of the estimated new HIV infections now occur among key populations, including men who have sex with men, sex workers, people who inject drugs, transgender individuals, and people in prisons and other closed settings, and their sexual partners. Reaching epidemic control will, for many countries, increasingly require intensified programming and targeted resource allocation to meet the needs of key populations and their sexual partners. However, insufficient funding, both in terms of overall amounts and the way the funding is spent, contributes to the systematic marginalization of key populations from needed HIV services. Discussion The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) has recently highlighted the urgent need to take action to end inequalities, including those faced by key populations, which have only been exacerbated by the COVID‐19 pandemic. To address these inequalities and improve health outcomes, key population programs must expand the use of a trusted access platform, scale up differentiated service delivery models tailored to the needs of key populations, rollout structural interventions and ensure service integration. These critical program elements are often considered “extras,” not necessities, and consequently costing studies of key population programs systematically underestimate the total and unitary costs of services for key populations. Findings from a recent costing study from the LINKAGES project suggest that adequate funding for these four program elements can yield benefits in program performance. Despite this and other evidence, the lack of data on the true costs of these elements and the costs of failing to provide them prevents sufficient investment in these critical elements. Conclusions As nations strive to reach the 2030 UNAIDS goals, donors, governments and implementers should reconsider the true, but often hidden costs in future healthcare dollars and in lives if they fail to invest in the community‐based and community‐driven key population programs that address structural inequities. Supporting these efforts contributes to closing the remaining gaps in the 95‐95‐95 goals. The financial and opportunity cost of perpetuating inequities and missing those who must be reached in the last mile of HIV epidemic control must be considered.

A cost analysis of comprehensive HIV services for key populations at higher risk of infection in Kenya and Malawi showed that costs can be substantial at all program implementation levels, not just service delivery; all these costs should be considered during program planning.

Background Data remain scarce on the costs of HIV services for key populations (KPs). The objective of this study was to bridge this gap in the literature by estimating the unit costs of HIV services delivered to KPs in the LINKAGES program in Kenya and Malawi. We estimated the mean total unit costs of seven clinical services: post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP), pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), HIV testing services (HTS), antiretroviral therapy (ART), sexually transmitted infection (STI) services, sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services, and management of sexual violence (MSV). These costs take into account the costs of non-clinical services delivered alongside clinical services and the pre-service and above-service program management integral to the LINKAGES program. Methods Data were collected at all implementation levels of the LINKAGES program including 30 drop-in-centers (DICs) in Kenya and 15 in Malawi. This study was conducted from the provider’s perspective. We estimated economic costs for FY 2019 and cost estimates include start-up costs. Start-up and capital costs were annualized using a discount rate of 3%. We used a combination of top-down and bottom-up costing approaches. Top-down methods were used to estimate the costs of headquarters, country offices, and implementing partners. Bottom-up micro-costing methods were used to measure the quantities and prices of inputs used to produce services in DICs. Volume-weighted mean unit costs were calculated for each clinical service. Costs are presented in 2019 United States dollars (US$). Results The mean total unit costs per service ranged from US$18 (95% CI: 16, 21) for STI services to US$635 (95% CI: 484, 785) for PrEP in Kenya and from US$41 (95% CI: 37, 44) for STI services to US$1,240 (95% CI 1156, 1324) for MSV in Malawi. Clinical costs accounted for between 21 and 59% of total mean unit costs in Kenya, and between 25 and 38% in Malawi. Indirect costs—including start-up activities, the costs of KP interventions implemented alongside clinical services, and program management and data monitoring—made up the remaining costs incurred. Conclusions A better understanding of the cost of HIV services is highly relevant for budgeting and planning purposes and for optimizing HIV services. When considering all service delivery costs of a comprehensive HIV service package for KPs, costs of services can be significantly higher than when considering direct clinical service costs alone. These estimates can inform investment cases, strategic plans and other budgeting exercises.