Are children of key population individuals at higher risk of HIV than other children? Results from a multi-country analysis of routine program data
Caterina Casalini,Sarah Yeiser,Hanna Amanuel,Amy Gottlieb,Chris Akolo,Madje Koffivi Toovi,Dismas Gashobotse,Pablo Mabanza,Bernard Ogwang,Sandra Georges,Natasha Mack,Meena Srivastava
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309847
IF: 3.7
2024-09-06
PLoS ONE
Abstract:Introduction: Children of key population individuals (CPK) often face the same stigma and discrimination as their parents, limiting their access to HIV services. The Meeting Targets and Maintaining Epidemic Control project analyzed pediatric HIV testing data from project-supported sites to better understand risk among CKP and improve comprehensive prevention, testing, and treatment for KP families. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of routine program data collected October 1, 2021-September 30, 2022, in project-supported sites in Burundi, Côte d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Tanzania, and Togo. We compared HIV case finding (defined as the percentage of children diagnosed with HIV among those who were tested) and treatment initiation (defined as the percentage of children diagnosed with HIV who were initiated on antiretroviral therapy) data for children <15 years disaggregated by index versus non-index testing and CKP versus children of non-KP individuals (non-CKP). Results: A total of 5,651 children were tested (n = 2,974 index testing; n = 2,677 non-index testing). Of those diagnosed with HIV, 33% (181/541) were CKP, with case finding 17% (181 positive/1,070 tested) among CKP and 8% among non-CKP (360 positive/4,581 tested). Almost half of CKP diagnosed were ages 1-4 years. Among the 2,974 (53%) reached through index testing, overall case finding was higher among CKP (17%; 178 positive/1,052 tested) than non-CKP (11%; 219 positive/1,922 tested). Treatment initiation was 97% among CKP and 94% among non-CKP. Discussion: CKP were identified primarily through index testing which, although considered a priority strategy to identify children at high risk, has not been widely used within KP family networks. Most CKP reached were children of female sex workers, but those of other KPs should also be prioritized. Conclusions: KP-focused programs have often excluded children, but the case-finding approaches in the project's KP programs were effective in reaching CKP. Comprehensive, family-centered KP programming is needed that includes family planning, prevention of vertical transmission, early infant diagnosis, and other maternal and child health services to reduce the impact of HIV on families and achieve an HIV-free generation.