HIV Infections, HIV Testing
Conditions
Keywords
HIV, Self-testing, HIVST
Brief summary
Oral fluid based HIV Self-testing (HIVST) provides another innovative and simple option to increase opportunities for HIV testing. At-home testing for HIV using oral fluid has been FDA approved and in use in the USA since 2012, and studies have also shown that interest and acceptability of HIVST with oral fluid is high in other global settings. However data for oral fluid based HIVST within key populations and those at high risk for HIV infection in Canada is limited. This study involves around 900 persons who are non-healthcare professionals and inexperienced in HIV self-testing (intended users) and are presenting at clinic sites across Canada for HIV testing. It will evaluate the accuracy (sensitivity and specificity), usability (persons performs test correctly) and readability (persons successfully interpret test results) of the OraQuick® HIV Self-Test when performed by persons representing intended users living in Canada. A final report of study results will be provided to the Test manufacturer for inclusion in the Health Canada license application process.
Detailed description
Background and Rationale: Self-testing for HIV is an approach with the potential to increase the access, uptake and frequency of HIV testing for those who may not otherwise test and remain undiagnosed. There is increasing evidence showing the acceptability and usability of HIV self-testing (HIVST) in various key populations. In 2016 the World Health Organization recommended HIVST as an alternative option to complement existing HIV testing opportunities. Since then, HIVST use has been scaling up rapidly; for example, Canada's first blood-based (fingerstick) HIV self-test was licensed for use in November 2020. Oral fluid based HIVST provides another innovative and simple option to increase opportunities for HIV testing. At-home testing for HIV using oral fluid has been FDA approved and in use in the USA since 2012, and studies have also shown that interest and acceptability of HIVST with oral fluid is high in other global settings. However data for oral fluid based HIVST within key populations and those at high risk for HIV infection in Canada is limited. Having a licensed oral fluid HIV self-test in addition to the licensed blood-based HIV self-test will allow individuals to choose what is best for them and increase the potential to reach the undiagnosed living with HIV. Objective: This study will evaluate the accuracy, usability (persons performs test correctly) and readability (persons successfully interpret test results) of the OraQuick® HIV Self-Test when performed by persons representing intended users living in Canada. Hypothesis: The OraQuick Self-test as performed by intended users (non-healthcare professional and inexperienced in HIV self-testing) will meet or exceed the accuracy, usability and label comprehension requirements from Health Canada for license as a Class IV in vitro diagnostic device for Canadian market entry. Study Design: This study was designed around the requirements set out in the Health Canada Guidance Document: Guidance for Manufacturers of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Rapid Diagnostic Tests (RDT's) for Use at Point of Care or Self Testing, 2017. It is an investigational device trial designed as a cross-sectional study which employs observational and interview-based methods. Sample population: The study population requirements published by Health Canada stipulates that the prospective study include: 900 lay persons with unknown HIV status including 400 persons at risk for HIV infection (e.g. intravenous drug users, men who have sex with men, etc.). Self-reported practices or behaviour will be used to define those at high risk. A minimum of 900 participants (non-healthcare professional and inexperienced in HIV self-testing) will read the instructions for use and conduct the OraQuick® HIV Self-Test. They will not be provided any training prior to use of the test. A trained healthcare provider or researcher (trained Observer) will watch, and document use of the test and independently read the participants self-test result. The participants will then complete a questionnaire to share their opinion on usability and label comprehension of this test. A minimum of 400 (of the 900) participants will also be provided five mock devices with different results and asked to interpret those results i.e. strong positive; weak positive, negative, invalid with no control and no test line, and invalid with no control and a positive test line. This will evaluate readability of this test. All participants will also have a venous blood sample collected for testing of plasma at a central laboratory with a 4th generation (Ag/Ab combo) HIV enzyme immunoassay that will serve as the comparator method (laboratory reference testing). All self-tests will be confirmed using a Canadian standard HIV testing algorithm. The sensitivity and specificity of the self-test result will be calculated relative to the clinical truth of the participants' HIV status determined by the confirmatory test process, where applicable. Participants will be instructed to return to the clinic for a follow-up visit, two (2) weeks after self-testing to obtain their laboratory test results which will be their official result. Study Intervention Details: Participants will be recruited to the study when they come in for voluntary HIV testing (e.g. POC testing) at a minimum of 3 study sites (different geographic locations). If persons consent to participating, all those enrolled will voluntarily complete a questionnaire (collecting demographics and HIV medical history information) and then provide their venous whole blood sample (for standard of care, laboratory confirmatory testing and comparator method), complete the OraQuick® HIV Self-Test (read test instructions, sample collection, sample testing, result interpretation), complete mock result interpretation, and complete questionnaires - Visit 1 (day 1; about 60 minutes). All patients will be instructed to return to the clinic for a follow-up visit two (2) weeks later to obtain their laboratory test results (Visit 2; about 15 - 60 minutes), post -test counselling, and to be linked to appropriate care depending on the test results.. Patients may also have a point-of-care (POC) test conducted on site as part of the clinic's standard of care testing, outside of the protocol and after all study procedures for Visit 1 are completed.
Interventions
OraQuick® HIV Self-Test in oral fluid conducted by observed intended users (non-healthcare professional and inexperienced in HIV self-testing) compared to laboratory 4th generation Ag/Ab enzyme immunoassay (EIA) results performed on venous blood.
Sponsors
Study design
Intervention model description
Cross-sectional, prospective, field trial (untrained self-tester)
Eligibility
Inclusion criteria
* Are 18 years of age and older * Are able to speak / read / write English or French * Have presented for voluntary testing for HIV infection in the clinic or community based setting * Are willing to participate in the study site's standard of care HIV counselling and testing program and receive the study site's standard of care test results * Are willing to be a participant in the study * Are able to provide informed consent i.e. understands and signs the informed consent form * Are able to complete the required testing on the allocated testing day * Are willing to provide the necessary oral fluid and venipuncture blood for use in the study protocol testing methods. * Are of unknown HIV status (last HIV negative test must be a minimum of 3 months prior)
Exclusion criteria
* Do not meet all the inclusion criteria * Are known HIV positive * Are on antiretroviral therapy (ART) or anti-HIV medications for the treatment of HIV, either as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) or experimental vaccine * Have any experience or have ever conducted a rapid diagnostic self-test for HIV or any other sexually transmitted and blood borne illnesses disease * Are currently participating in a concurrent trial of HIV self-tests * Are investigator site employees or immediate family members of sponsor or investigator site employee * Are a practicing medical healthcare professional (doctor, nurse or HIV counsellor that performs HIV testing with Rapid Tests) * Any condition which, in the opinion of the Observer, would make the participant unsuitable or unsafe for enrolment or could interfere with the completion of the assessment and questionnaire etc. or bias the outcome, e.g. being unable to see / read by forgetting to bring reading glasses, being intoxicated, acute sickness, visibly distressed.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Device Performance: Positive and Negative Percent Agreement | Outcome measured following POC tests on Visit 1, Day 1 for each participant. | Sensitivity and specificity of study participants' self-interpreted self-test results with the OraQuick® HIV Self-Test versus the HIV status as determined by the 4th generation EIA and confirmatory testing for HIV as necessary. |
| Observer Usability Assessment | Outcome measured following POC tests on Visit 1, Day 1 for each participant. | Observation to determine if participants perform all critical steps correctly |
| Participant and Observer Interpretations | Outcome measured following POC tests on Visit 1, Day 1 for each participant. | Confirmation by Observer to determine if participant interprets test results correctly and successful interpretation of various contrived (mock) test device results. |
| Label Comprehension | Outcome measured following POC tests on Visit 1, Day 1 for each participant. | To determine that the participant is aware of key messages in labelling including test limitations and what to do following the test result. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Readability or Interpretation (Mock Devices) | Outcome measured following mock device interpretation on Visit 1, Day 1 for each participant. | The percentage of correct interpretations of contrived devices compared to the expected results. |
Countries
Canada
Participant flow
Participants by arm
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| Investigational Device Observed self-test of oral fluid with the OraQuick HIV Self-Test
OraQuick® HIV Self-Test: OraQuick® HIV Self-Test in oral fluid conducted by observed intended users (non-healthcare professional and inexperienced in HIV self-testing) compared to laboratory 4th generation Ag/Ab enzyme immunoassay (EIA) results performed on venous blood. | 911 |
| Total | 911 |
Withdrawals & dropouts
| Period | Reason | FG000 |
|---|---|---|
| Overall Study | Protocol Violation | 7 |
| Overall Study | Withdrawal by Subject | 33 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | Investigational Device |
|---|---|
| Age, Customized 18-25 years | 307 Participants |
| Age, Customized 26-35 years | 302 Participants |
| Age, Customized 36-45 years | 158 Participants |
| Age, Customized 46-55 years | 73 Participants |
| Age, Customized >55 years | 70 Participants |
| Age, Customized Prefer not to answer | 1 Participants |
| Education College | 242 Participants |
| Education No formal education | 0 Participants |
| Education Prefer not to answer | 3 Participants |
| Education Primary school | 20 Participants |
| Education Secondary school | 226 Participants |
| Education University or higher | 420 Participants |
| Employment Employed | 405 Participants |
| Employment Prefer not to answer | 7 Participants |
| Employment Retired | 23 Participants |
| Employment Student | 261 Participants |
| Employment Unemployed | 215 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Hispanic or Latino | 0 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Not Hispanic or Latino | 0 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported | 911 Participants |
| HIV Status Negative status | 485 Participants |
| HIV Status Unknown status/never tested | 426 Participants |
| Medical Condition Answer not provided | 768 Participants |
| Medical Condition Diabetes | 21 Participants |
| Medical Condition Hypertension | 23 Participants |
| Medical Condition Other medical condition | 86 Participants |
| Medical Condition Sexually transmitted infection | 13 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized African/Caribbean/Black | 211 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized East Asian | 85 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Indigenous | 46 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized LatinX | 54 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Middle Eastern/North African | 25 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Other | 33 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized South Asian | 222 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized White | 235 Participants |
| Reading/Writing Impairment Answer not provided | 6 Participants |
| Reading/Writing Impairment No | 866 Participants |
| Reading/Writing Impairment Yes | 39 Participants |
| Region of Enrollment Canada British Columbia | 102 Participants |
| Region of Enrollment Canada Manitoba | 56 Participants |
| Region of Enrollment Canada Ontario | 662 Participants |
| Region of Enrollment Canada Quebec | 91 Participants |
| Self-Reported HIV Risk High risk | 520 Participants |
| Self-Reported HIV Risk Low risk | 391 Participants |
| Sex/Gender, Customized Cis-female | 450 Participants |
| Sex/Gender, Customized Cis-male | 434 Participants |
| Sex/Gender, Customized Other | 26 Participants |
| Sex/Gender, Customized Prefer not to anwer | 1 Participants |
| Sexual Orientation Bisexual | 82 Participants |
| Sexual Orientation Gay/Lesbian | 150 Participants |
| Sexual Orientation Heterosexual | 606 Participants |
| Sexual Orientation Other | 52 Participants |
| Sexual Orientation Prefer not to answer | 21 Participants |
| Tested for HIV Before Answer not provided | 10 Participants |
| Tested for HIV Before No | 422 Participants |
| Tested for HIV Before Yes | 479 Participants |
| Visual Impairment Answer not provided | 6 Participants |
| Visual Impairment No | 604 Participants |
| Visual Impairment Yes | 301 Participants |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk |
|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | 0 / 951 |
| other Total, other adverse events | 3 / 951 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 0 / 951 |
Outcome results
Device Performance: Positive and Negative Percent Agreement
Sensitivity and specificity of study participants' self-interpreted self-test results with the OraQuick® HIV Self-Test versus the HIV status as determined by the 4th generation EIA and confirmatory testing for HIV as necessary.
Time frame: Outcome measured following POC tests on Visit 1, Day 1 for each participant.
Population: The invalids, inconclusive and not sure/do not know were not included in the calculations of Positive and Negative % Agreement.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Self-testing Participants | Device Performance: Positive and Negative Percent Agreement | True Positive | 1 Participants |
| Self-testing Participants | Device Performance: Positive and Negative Percent Agreement | False Negative | 0 Participants |
| Self-testing Participants | Device Performance: Positive and Negative Percent Agreement | True Negative | 880 Participants |
| Self-testing Participants | Device Performance: Positive and Negative Percent Agreement | False Positive | 0 Participants |
| Self-testing Participants | Device Performance: Positive and Negative Percent Agreement | Inconclusive | 1 Participants |
| Self-testing Participants | Device Performance: Positive and Negative Percent Agreement | Positive % Agreement | 1 Participants |
| Self-testing Participants | Device Performance: Positive and Negative Percent Agreement | Negative % Agreement | 880 Participants |
| Self-testing Participants | Device Performance: Positive and Negative Percent Agreement | Invalid | 20 Participants |
| Self-testing Participants | Device Performance: Positive and Negative Percent Agreement | Not sure/Do not know | 9 Participants |
Label Comprehension
To determine that the participant is aware of key messages in labelling including test limitations and what to do following the test result.
Time frame: Outcome measured following POC tests on Visit 1, Day 1 for each participant.
Population: The numbers are based on survey responses which varied across the different survey questions.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Category | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Self-testing Participants | Label Comprehension | Were the Instructions for Use (IFU) easy to follow? | Yes | 878 Participants |
| Self-testing Participants | Label Comprehension | Did you use the Instructions for Use (IFU) sheet to help you complete the test? | Yes | 881 Participants |
| Self-testing Participants | Label Comprehension | Did you use the Instructions for Use (IFU) sheet to help you complete the test? | No | 22 Participants |
| Self-testing Participants | Label Comprehension | Were the Instructions for Use (IFU) easy to follow? | No | 24 Participants |
| Self-testing Participants | Label Comprehension | Were the pictures and illustrations in the Instruction for Use (IFU) helpful? | Yes | 878 Participants |
| Self-testing Participants | Label Comprehension | Were the pictures and illustrations in the Instruction for Use (IFU) helpful? | No | 24 Participants |
| Self-testing Participants | Label Comprehension | Was the Self-Test easy to use? | Yes | 895 Participants |
| Self-testing Participants | Label Comprehension | Was the Self-Test easy to use? | No | 7 Participants |
| Self-testing Participants | Label Comprehension | Are you confident you could perform this test on your own? | Yes | 899 Participants |
| Self-testing Participants | Label Comprehension | Are you confident you could perform this test on your own? | No | 3 Participants |
| Self-testing Participants | Label Comprehension | Would you use this test again if it were available to you? | Yes | 882 Participants |
| Self-testing Participants | Label Comprehension | Would you use this test again if it were available to you? | No | 20 Participants |
| Self-testing Participants | Label Comprehension | Would you prefer to use this test at home (yes) or get tested at a clinic (no)? | Yes | 697 Participants |
| Self-testing Participants | Label Comprehension | Would you prefer to use this test at home (yes) or get tested at a clinic (no)? | No | 205 Participants |
| Self-testing Participants | Label Comprehension | Would you recommend this test to others? (e.g. a sexual partner, friend) | Yes | 890 Participants |
| Self-testing Participants | Label Comprehension | Would you recommend this test to others? (e.g. a sexual partner, friend) | No | 12 Participants |
Observer Usability Assessment
Observation to determine if participants perform all critical steps correctly
Time frame: Outcome measured following POC tests on Visit 1, Day 1 for each participant.
Population: Totals for each category varied based on participant responses
| Arm | Measure | Group | Category | Value (COUNT_OF_UNITS) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Self-testing Participants | Observer Usability Assessment | Did the study participant remove the cap from the test tube? | Expected response | 896 Expected Responses |
| Self-testing Participants | Observer Usability Assessment | Did the study participant remove the cap from the test tube? | Unexpected response | 10 Expected Responses |
| Self-testing Participants | Observer Usability Assessment | Was the study participant able to find the test stick packet? | Expected response | 903 Expected Responses |
| Self-testing Participants | Observer Usability Assessment | Was the study participant able to find the test stick packet? | Unexpected response | 3 Expected Responses |
| Self-testing Participants | Observer Usability Assessment | Did the participant perform any steps out of the order? | Unexpected response | 106 Expected Responses |
| Self-testing Participants | Observer Usability Assessment | Did the participant miss any step and continue the process despite a missed or incorrect step? | Expected response | 860 Expected Responses |
| Self-testing Participants | Observer Usability Assessment | Did the participant miss any step and continue the process despite a missed or incorrect step? | Unexpected response | 46 Expected Responses |
| Self-testing Participants | Observer Usability Assessment | Did the participant quit the process at any point? | Unexpected response | 1 Expected Responses |
| Self-testing Participants | Observer Usability Assessment | Did the study participant wait 20 minutes before reading the results of the test? | Expected response | 820 Expected Responses |
| Self-testing Participants | Observer Usability Assessment | Did the participant quit the process at any point? | Expected response | 905 Expected Responses |
| Self-testing Participants | Observer Usability Assessment | Did the study participant wait 20 minutes before reading the results of the test? | Unexpected response | 86 Expected Responses |
| Self-testing Participants | Observer Usability Assessment | Did the study participant read the instructions for use (IFU)? | Expected response | 859 Expected Responses |
| Self-testing Participants | Observer Usability Assessment | Did the study participant read the instructions for use (IFU)? | Unexpected response | 47 Expected Responses |
| Self-testing Participants | Observer Usability Assessment | Were the instructions for use (IFU) read before the test? | Expected response | 701 Expected Responses |
| Self-testing Participants | Observer Usability Assessment | Were the instructions for use (IFU) read before the test? | Unexpected response | 205 Expected Responses |
| Self-testing Participants | Observer Usability Assessment | Was the IFU referred to during the test process? | Expected response | 864 Expected Responses |
| Self-testing Participants | Observer Usability Assessment | Was the IFU referred to during the test process? | Unexpected response | 42 Expected Responses |
| Self-testing Participants | Observer Usability Assessment | Did the study participant remove the contents of the test pack? | Expected response | 901 Expected Responses |
| Self-testing Participants | Observer Usability Assessment | Did the study participant remove the contents of the test pack? | Unexpected response | 5 Expected Responses |
| Self-testing Participants | Observer Usability Assessment | Was the study participant able to find the test tube packet? | Expected response | 905 Expected Responses |
| Self-testing Participants | Observer Usability Assessment | Was the study participant able to find the test tube packet? | Unexpected response | 1 Expected Responses |
| Self-testing Participants | Observer Usability Assessment | Did the study participant remove the test tube from the packet? | Expected response | 905 Expected Responses |
| Self-testing Participants | Observer Usability Assessment | Did the study participant remove the test tube from the packet? | Unexpected response | 1 Expected Responses |
| Self-testing Participants | Observer Usability Assessment | Did the study participant place the test tube in the holder? | Expected response | 848 Expected Responses |
| Self-testing Participants | Observer Usability Assessment | Did the study participant place the test tube in the holder? | Unexpected response | 58 Expected Responses |
| Self-testing Participants | Observer Usability Assessment | Did the study participant have any difficulty with the test tube? | Expected response | 731 Expected Responses |
| Self-testing Participants | Observer Usability Assessment | Did the study participant have any difficulty with the test tube? | Unexpected response | 175 Expected Responses |
| Self-testing Participants | Observer Usability Assessment | Did the study participant remove the test stick from the packet? | Expected response | 902 Expected Responses |
| Self-testing Participants | Observer Usability Assessment | Did the study participant remove the test stick from the packet? | Unexpected response | 4 Expected Responses |
| Self-testing Participants | Observer Usability Assessment | Did the study participant touch the flat pad? | Expected response | 859 Expected Responses |
| Self-testing Participants | Observer Usability Assessment | Did the study participant touch the flat pad? | Unexpected response | 47 Expected Responses |
| Self-testing Participants | Observer Usability Assessment | Did the study participant collect the sample correctly (1x upper and lower swab)? | Expected response | 754 Expected Responses |
| Self-testing Participants | Observer Usability Assessment | Did the study participant collect the sample correctly (1x upper and lower swab)? | Unexpected response | 152 Expected Responses |
| Self-testing Participants | Observer Usability Assessment | Did the study participant place the test stick in the test tube correctly? | Expected response | 889 Expected Responses |
| Self-testing Participants | Observer Usability Assessment | Did the study participant place the test stick in the test tube correctly? | Unexpected response | 17 Expected Responses |
| Self-testing Participants | Observer Usability Assessment | Did the participant perform any steps out of the order? | Expected response | 800 Expected Responses |
Participant and Observer Interpretations
Confirmation by Observer to determine if participant interprets test results correctly and successful interpretation of various contrived (mock) test device results.
Time frame: Outcome measured following POC tests on Visit 1, Day 1 for each participant.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Self-testing Participants | Participant and Observer Interpretations | Participant & Observer Agreement | 884 Participants |
| Self-testing Participants | Participant and Observer Interpretations | Participant & Observer Disagreement | 22 Participants |
Readability or Interpretation (Mock Devices)
The percentage of correct interpretations of contrived devices compared to the expected results.
Time frame: Outcome measured following mock device interpretation on Visit 1, Day 1 for each participant.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (COUNT_OF_UNITS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Self-testing Participants | Readability or Interpretation (Mock Devices) | Strong positive | 418 In Concordance |
| Self-testing Participants | Readability or Interpretation (Mock Devices) | Weak positive | 329 In Concordance |
| Self-testing Participants | Readability or Interpretation (Mock Devices) | Negative | 453 In Concordance |
| Self-testing Participants | Readability or Interpretation (Mock Devices) | Invalid, test line present | 273 In Concordance |
| Self-testing Participants | Readability or Interpretation (Mock Devices) | Invalid, no control line or test line | 448 In Concordance |