ArticleInfectious diseases and therapy2025
Indirect Treatment Comparison of Long-Acting Injectable Cabotegravir as Pre-exposure Prophylaxis When Compared with no Pre-exposure Prophylaxis for HIV Prevention.
Article in Infectious diseases and therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe efficacy of long-acting injectable cabotegravir (hereafter referred to as cabotegravir) versus daily oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) was demonstrated in two phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), HPTN 083 and HPTN 084. As these trials did not have a no-PrEP group, this analysis aimed to perform an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) of cabotegravir versus no PrEP via the common comparator of oral TDF/FTC.
methodsA systematic literature review identifying trials of oral or both oral and injectable PrEP reporting HIV acquisition and oral PrEP adherence, measured by detectable TDF/FTC plasma levels, was conducted (November 1, 2023). Heterogeneity in oral TDF/FTC adherence level between trials was expected to confound ITC estimates; therefore, a meta-regression of adherence and resulting oral PrEP effectiveness, or reduction in HIV acquisition, was incorporated into an ITC using a joint Bayesian model framework.
resultsThe analysis included ten RCTs. The meta-regression showed a strong relationship between oral TDF/FTC adherence and effectiveness. The predicted effectiveness of oral TDF/FTC versus no PrEP was greater for HPTN 083 (77%) compared with HPTN 084 (47%), reflecting the higher level of adherence observed in HTPN 083 (86%) compared with HPTN 084 (56%). Based on the ITC, the predicted effectiveness of cabotegravir versus no PrEP was similar for both populations investigated in HPTN 083 (92%) and HPTN 084 (93%).
conclusionsThe ITC of cabotegravir versus no PrEP predicted similar estimates of cabotegravir effectiveness in the HPTN 083 and 084 trials, suggesting a very high level of efficacy despite differences in population, setting, underlying rate of HIV acquisition, and oral TDF/FTC adherence. These estimates support the generalizability of the cabotegravir results from both HPTN trials to other populations and regions than those in which these trials were conducted. Graphical abstract available for this article.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.