Relative cost-effectiveness of long-acting injectable cabotegravir versus oral pre-exposure prophylaxis in South Africa based on the HPTN 083 and HPTN 084 trials: a modelled economic evaluation and threshold analysis

Lise Jamieson, Leigh F Johnson, Brooke E Nichols, Sinead Delany-Moretlwe, Mina C Hosseinipour, Colin Russell, Gesine Meyer-Rath, Lise Jamieson, Leigh F Johnson, Brooke E Nichols, Sinead Delany-Moretlwe, Mina C Hosseinipour, Colin Russell, Gesine Meyer-Rath

Abstract

Background: Long-acting injectable cabotegravir, a drug taken every 2 months, has been shown to be more effective at preventing HIV infection than daily oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine, but its cost-effectiveness in a high-prevalence setting is not known. We aimed to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of long-acting injectable cabotegravir compared with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine in South Africa, using methods standard to government planning, and to determine the threshold price at which long-acting injectable cabotegravir is as cost-effective as tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine.

Methods: In this modelled economic evaluation and threshold analysis, we updated a deterministic model of the South African HIV epidemic with data from the HPTN 083 and HPTN 084 trials to evaluate the effect of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine and long-acting injectable cabotegravir provision to heterosexual adolescents and young women and men aged 15-24 years, female sex workers, and men who have sex with men. We estimated the average intervention cost, in 2021 US$, using ingredients-based costing, and modelled the cost-effectiveness of two coverage scenarios (medium or high, assuming higher uptake of long-acting injectable cabotegravir than tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine throughout) and, for long-acting injectable cabotegravir, two duration subscenarios (minimum: same pre-exposure prophylaxis duration as for tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine; maximum: longer duration than tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine) over 2022-41.

Findings: Across long-acting injectable cabotegravir scenarios, 15-28% more new HIV infections were averted compared with the baseline scenario (current tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine roll-out). In scenarios with increased coverage with oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine, 4-8% more new HIV infections were averted compared with the baseline scenario. If long-acting injectable cabotegravir drug costs were equal to those of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine for the same 2-month period, the incremental cost of long-acting injectable cabotegravir to the HIV programme was higher than that of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine (5-10% vs 2-4%) due to higher assumed uptake of long-acting injectable cabotegravir. The cost per infection averted was $6053-6610 (tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine) and $4471-6785 (long-acting injectable cabotegravir). The cost per long-acting cabotegravir injection needed to be less than twice that of a 2-month supply of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine to remain as cost-effective, with threshold prices ranging between $9·03 per injection (high coverage; maximum duration) and $14·47 per injection (medium coverage; minimum duration).

Interpretation: Long-acting injectable cabotegravir could potentially substantially change HIV prevention. However, for its implementation to be financially feasible across low-income and middle-income countries with high HIV incidence, long-acting injectable cabotegravir must be reasonably priced.

Funding: United States Agency for International Development, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests.

Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Effect of long-acting injectable cabotegravir and oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine) on HIV infections and deaths, 2022–41 (A) Annual HIV infections averted. (B) Annual population HIV incidence. (C) Annual AIDS deaths averted. (D) Annual life-years saved over baseline (total population size over time horizon was approximately 60–73 million). Long-acting injectable cabotegravir and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine are modelled under two coverage scenarios (high and medium); long-acting injectable cabotegravir is additionally modelled under both a minimum and maximum scenario, as described in table 1.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Effect of long-acting injectable cabotegravir and oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine) on patients on ART and HIV programme cost, 2022–41 (A) Annual total patients on ART. (B) Total HIV programme cost if long-acting injectable cabotegravir drug price was the same as tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine. (C) Total HIV programme cost if long-acting injectable cabotegravir drug price was twice that of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine. ART=antiretroviral therapy.

References

    1. Johnson LF. Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Research; Cape Town: 2020. Thembisa version 4.3: a model for evaluating the impact of HIV/AIDS in South Africa.
    1. Hanscom B, Janes HE, Guarino PD, et al. Brief report: preventing HIV-1 infection in women using oral preexposure prophylaxis: a meta-analysis of current evidence. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2016;73:606–608.
    1. Fonner VA, Dalglish SL, Kennedy CE, et al. Effectiveness and safety of oral HIV preexposure prophylaxis for all populations. AIDS. 2016;30:1973–1983.
    1. Bekker L-G, Rebe K, Venter F, et al. Southern African guidelines on the safe use of pre-exposure prophylaxis in persons at risk of acquiring HIV-1 infection. South Afr J HIV Med. 2016;17:455.
    1. Landovitz RJ, Donnell D, Clement ME, et al. Cabotegravir for HIV prevention in cisgender men and transgender women. N Engl J Med. 2021;385:595–608.
    1. Delany-Moretlwe S, Hughes JP, Bock P, et al. Cabotegravir for the prevention of HIV-1 in women: results from HPTN 084, a phase 3, randomised clinical trial. Lancet. 2022;399:1779–1789.
    1. Delany-Moretlwe S, Hughes JP, Bock P, et al. Long acting cabotegravir: updated efficacy and safety results from HPTN 084. AIDS 2022; July 29–Aug 2, 2022 (abstr OALBX0107).
    1. WHO Guidelines on long-acting injectable cabotegravir for HIV prevention.
    1. Celum C, Hosek S, Tsholwana M, et al. PrEP uptake, persistence, adherence, and effect of retrospective drug level feedback on PrEP adherence among young women in southern Africa: results from HPTN 082, a randomized controlled trial. PLoS Med. 2021;18
    1. Tolley EE, Li S, Zangeneh SZ, et al. Acceptability of a long-acting injectable HIV prevention product among US and African women: findings from a phase 2 clinical Trial (HPTN 076) J Int AIDS Soc. 2019;22
    1. Tolley EE, Zangeneh SZ, Chau G, et al. Acceptability of long-acting injectable cabotegravir (CAB LA) in HIV-uninfected individuals: HPTN 077. AIDS Behav. 2020;24:2520–2531.
    1. Cheng C-Y, Quaife M, Eakle R, Cabrera Escobar MA, Vickerman P, Terris-Prestholt F. Determinants of heterosexual men's demand for long-acting injectable pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV in urban South Africa. BMC Public Health. 2019;19:996.
    1. Glaubius RL, Hood G, Penrose KJ, et al. Cost-effectiveness of injectable preexposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention in South Africa. Clin Infect Dis. 2016;63:539–547.
    1. Smith JA, Garnett GP, Hallett TB. The potential impact of long-acting cabotegravir for HIV prevention in South Africa: a mathematical modeling study. J Infect Dis. 2021;224:1179–1186.
    1. van Vliet MM, Hendrickson C, Nichols BE, Boucher CA, Peters RP, van de Vijver DA. Epidemiological impact and cost-effectiveness of providing long-acting pre-exposure prophylaxis to injectable contraceptive users for HIV prevention in South Africa: a modelling study. J Int AIDS Soc. 2019;22
    1. Vogelzang M, Terris-Prestholt F, Vickerman P, Delany-Moretlwe S, Travill D, Quaife M. Cost-effectiveness of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis among heterosexual men in South Africa: a cost-utility modeling analysis. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2020;84:173–181.
    1. Walensky RP, Jacobsen MM, Bekker L-G, et al. Potential clinical and economic value of long-acting preexposure prophylaxis for South African women at high-risk for HIV infection. J Infect Dis. 2016;213:1523–1531.
    1. Oliveira M, Ibanescu R-I, Anstett K, et al. Selective resistance profiles emerging in patient-derived clinical isolates with cabotegravir, bictegravir, dolutegravir, and elvitegravir. Retrovirology. 2018;15:56.
    1. Johnson L, Dorrington R. Thembisa version 4.4: a model for evaluating the impact of HIV/AIDS in South Africa. 2021.
    1. Quaife M, Eakle R, Cabrera Escobar MA, et al. Divergent preferences for HIV prevention: a discrete choice experiment for multipurpose HIV prevention products in South Africa. Med Decis Making. 2018;38:120–133.
    1. Levy ME, Agopian A, Magnus M, et al. Is long-acting injectable cabotegravir likely to expand PrEP coverage among MSM in the District of Columbia? J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2021;86:e80–e82.
    1. UNAIDS Programme Coordinating Board Annual progress report on HIV prevention. 2020.
    1. Sharfstein JM, Killelea A, Dangerfield D. Long-acting cabotegravir for HIV prevention: issues of access, cost, and equity. JAMA. 2022;327:921–922.
    1. Chiu C, Johnson LF, Jamieson L, Larson BA, Meyer-Rath G. Designing an optimal HIV programme for South Africa: does the optimal package change when diminishing returns are considered? BMC Public Health. 2017;17:143.
    1. Marzinke MA, Grinsztejn B, Fogel JM, et al. Characterization of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection in cisgender men and transgender women who have sex with men receiving injectable cabotegravir for HIV prevention: HPTN 083. J Infect Dis. 2021;224:1581–1592.
    1. Chersich MF, Wabiri N, Risher K, et al. Contraception coverage and methods used among women in South Africa: a national household survey. S Afr Med J. 2017;107:307–314.
    1. Ross J, Stover J. Use of modern contraception increases when more methods become available: analysis of evidence from 1982–2009. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2013;1:203–212.
    1. The South African Reserve Bank Selected historical rates. 2021.
    1. Jamieson L, Gomez GB, Rebe K, et al. The impact of self-selection based on HIV risk on the cost-effectiveness of preexposure prophylaxis in South Africa. AIDS. 2020;34:883–891.
    1. Wilkinson T, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, et al. The international decision support initiative reference case for economic evaluation: an aid to thought. Value Health. 2016;19:921–928.
    1. Landovitz RJ, Li S, Eron JJ, Jr, et al. Tail-phase safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of long-acting injectable cabotegravir in HIV-uninfected adults: a secondary analysis of the HPTN 077 trial. Lancet HIV. 2020;7:e472–e481.
    1. Eshleman SH, Fogel JM, Piwowar-Manning E, et al. Characterization of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infections in women who received injectable cabotegravir or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine for HIV prevention: HPTN 084. J Infect Dis. 2022;225:1741–1749.
    1. Gill K, Happel A-U, Pidwell T, et al. An open-label, randomized crossover study to evaluate the acceptability and preference for contraceptive options in female adolescents, 15 to 19 years of age in Cape Town, as a proxy for HIV prevention methods (UChoose) J Int AIDS Soc. 2020;23

Source: PubMed

3
Suscribir