Respondent-driven sampling for identification of HIV- and HCV-infected people who inject drugs and men who have sex with men in India: A cross-sectional, community-based analysis.

BACKGROUND: A major barrier to achieving ambitious targets for global control of HIV and hepatitis C virus (HCV) is low levels of awareness of infection among key populations such as men who have sex with men (MSM) and people who inject drugs (PWID). We explored the potential of a strategy routinely used for surveillance in these groups, respondent-driven sampling (RDS), to be used as an intervention to identify HIV- and HCV-infected PWID and MSM who are unaware of their status and those who are viremic across 26 Indian cities at various epidemic stages.

METHODS AND FINDINGS: Data were collected as part of the baseline assessment of an ongoing cluster-randomized trial. RDS was used to accrue participants at 27 sites (15 PWID sites and 12 MSM sites) selected to reflect varying stages of the HIV epidemic among MSM and PWID in India. A total of 56 seeds recruited a sample of 26,447 persons (approximately 1,000 participants per site) between October 1, 2012, and December 19, 2013. Across MSM sites (n = 11,997), the median age was 25 years and the median number of lifetime male partners was 8. Across PWID sites (n = 14,450), 92.4% were male, the median age was 30 years, and 87.5% reported injection in the prior 6 months. RDS identified 4,051 HIV-infected persons, of whom 2,325 (57.4%) were unaware of their HIV infection and 2,816 (69.5%) were HIV viremic. It also identified 5,777 HCV-infected persons, of whom 5,337 (92.4%) were unaware that they were infected with HCV and 4,728 (81.8%) were viremic. In the overall sample (both MSM and PWID), the prevalence of HIV-infected persons who were unaware of their status increased with sampling depth, from 7.9% in participants recruited in waves 1 through 5 to 12.8% among those recruited in waves 26 and above (p-value for trend < 0.001). The overall detection rate of people unaware of their HIV infection was 0.5 persons per day, and the detection rate of HIV-infected persons with viremia (regardless of their awareness status) was 0.7 per day. The detection rate of HIV viremic individuals was positively associated with underlying HIV prevalence and the prevalence of HIV viremia (linear regression coefficient per 1-percentage-point increase in prevalence: 0.05 and 0.07, respectively). The median detection rate of PWID who were unaware of their HCV infection was 2.5 per day. The cost of identifying 1 unaware HIV-infected individual ranged from US$51 to US$2,072 across PWID sites and from US$189 to US$5,367 across MSM sites. The mean additional cost of identifying 1 unaware HCV-infected PWID was US$13 (site range: US$7-US$140). Limitations of the study include the exclusivity of study sites to India, lack of prior HIV/HCV diagnosis confirmation with clinic records, and lack of cost data from other case-finding approaches commonly used in India.

CONCLUSIONS: In this study, RDS was able to rapidly identify at nominal cost a substantial number of unaware and viremic HIV-infected and HCV-infected individuals who were currently not being reached by existing programs and who were at high risk for transmission. Combining RDS (or other network-driven recruitment approaches) with strategies focused on linkage to care, particularly in high-burden settings, may be a viable option for achieving the 90-90-90 targets in key populations in resource-limited settings.