SynthesisAdvances in therapy2026
Indirect Treatment Comparison of the Efficacy of Long-Acting Injectable Cabotegravir Compared With Lenacapavir for HIV Pre-exposure Prophylaxis.
Synthesis in Advances in therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLong-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.
methodsA 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.
resultsBoth 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.
conclusionBased 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.
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.