Indirect Treatment Comparison of the Efficacy of Long-Acting Injectable Cabotegravir Compared With Lenacapavir for HIV Pre-exposure Prophylaxis

INTRODUCTION: Long-acting injectable cabotegravir (hereafter referred to as cabotegravir) is the first long-acting injectable approved for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) based on the HPTN 083 and 084 trials. Long-acting injectable lenacapavir (hereafter referred to as lenacapavir) was approved for PrEP based on the PURPOSE 1 and 2 trials. In the absence of a head-to-head trial, we conducted an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) to assess efficacy of lenacapavir versus cabotegravir in reducing the risk of HIV acquisition. METHODS: A systematic literature review identified all relevant trials. Efficacy inputs for this ITC were derived from re-adjudicated data from the injection phase of the HPTN trials or published data from the PURPOSE trials. The ITC was performed using 2 network approaches: (1) using no PrEP and (2) using daily oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) as common comparators, with adjustments accounting for differing levels of adherence to TDF/FTC across trials. Sensitivity analyses were also performed using data from both the oral lead-in and injection phases of the HPTN trials. RESULTS: Both network approaches estimated high and comparable efficacy of cabotegravir and lenacapavir. Using no PrEP (network approach 1), the base case estimated hazard ratio (95% CrI) of lenacapavir versus cabotegravir was 1.04 (0.19, 5.69) in men who have sex with men and transgender women and 0.00 (0.00, 3.21) in cisgender women. Predicted efficacy (95% CrI) rates of cabotegravir versus no PrEP were high in men who have sex with men and transgender women 96% (90%, 98%)] and cisgender women [98% (89%, 100%)] in the HPTN trials, which were comparable to the PURPOSE trials [men and gender-diverse people, 96% (82%, 99%); cisgender women, 100%(96%,100%)]. Sensitivity analyses confirmed these findings. CONCLUSION: Based on this ITC, cabotegravir and lenacapavir offer similar and high efficacy in preventing HIV acquisitions compared with no PrEP or TDF/FTC. Graphical abstract and video abstract available for this article.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Advances in Therapy
Published
2026-05-22
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-026-03591-7
Primary Topic
HIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Indirect Treatment Comparison of the Efficacy of Long-Acting Injectable Cabotegravir Compared With Lenacapavir for HIV Pre-exposure Prophylaxis

Marius Sieverding, Sarah‐Jane Anderson, Jenny Scherzer, L. Benjamin et al.
Advances in Therapy
HIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
article

Indirect Treatment Comparison of the Efficacy of Long-Acting Injectable Cabotegravir Compared With Lenacapavir for HIV Pre-exposure Prophylaxis

Marius Sieverding, Sarah‐Jane Anderson, Jenny Scherzer, L. Benjamin, Natalya Danchenko, Piotr Budnik, Aniruddha Hazra, Richard Grove, Neil Hawkins, Juliette Thompson, Marisa Brizzi
article en

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Long-acting injectable cabotegravir (hereafter referred to as cabotegravir) is the first long-acting injectable approved for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) based on the HPTN 083 and 084 trials. Long-acting injectable lenacapavir (hereafter referred to as lenacapavir) was approved for PrEP based on the PURPOSE 1 and 2 trials. In the absence of a head-to-head trial, we conducted an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) to assess efficacy of lenacapavir versus cabotegravir in reducing the risk of HIV acquisition. METHODS: A systematic literature review identified all relevant trials. Efficacy inputs for this ITC were derived from re-adjudicated data from the injection phase of the HPTN trials or published data from the PURPOSE trials. The ITC was performed using 2 network approaches: (1) using no PrEP and (2) using daily oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) as common comparators, with adjustments accounting for differing levels of adherence to TDF/FTC across trials. Sensitivity analyses were also performed using data from both the oral lead-in and injection phases of the HPTN trials. RESULTS: Both network approaches estimated high and comparable efficacy of cabotegravir and lenacapavir. Using no PrEP (network approach 1), the base case estimated hazard ratio (95% CrI) of lenacapavir versus cabotegravir was 1.04 (0.19, 5.69) in men who have sex with men and transgender women and 0.00 (0.00, 3.21) in cisgender women. Predicted efficacy (95% CrI) rates of cabotegravir versus no PrEP were high in men who have sex with men and transgender women 96% (90%, 98%)] and cisgender women [98% (89%, 100%)] in the HPTN trials, which were comparable to the PURPOSE trials [men and gender-diverse people, 96% (82%, 99%); cisgender women, 100%(96%,100%)]. Sensitivity analyses confirmed these findings. CONCLUSION: Based on this ITC, cabotegravir and lenacapavir offer similar and high efficacy in preventing HIV acquisitions compared with no PrEP or TDF/FTC. Graphical abstract and video abstract available for this article.

Advances in Therapy
Chicago Department of Public Health (US), ViiV Healthcare (Spain) (ES), ViiV Healthcare (United Kingdom) (GB), Cardiovascular Center Frankfurt (DE), French Norwegian Foundation (FR)
ViiV Healthcare
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
HIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.