Health and budget impact, and price threshold for cost-effectiveness of lenacapavir for PrEP in Eastern and Southern Africa: a modeling analysis

INTRODUCTION

HIV incidence remains unacceptably high in Eastern and Southern Africa (ESA) causing substantial morbidity, mortality, and financial strain on health systems(1). Daily oral pre- exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is effective at preventing HIV acquisition and available in public clinics in ESA, but uptake is far below UNAIDS targets(2,3); additionally, among those initiating PrEP, adherence and persistence are suboptimal(4). Barriers to oral PrEP use include pill burden and stigma associated with taking daily antiretrovirals(3). Studies among key groups and the general population indicate a preference for long-acting (LA) PrEP compared to daily oral pills, with injectables preferred over implants and a strong desire for longer duration products(5). LA PrEP can overcome barriers associated with uptake, adherence, persistence, by providing a more convenient and discreet alternative to daily pill taking and mitigating adherence challenges.

Lenacapavir has emerged as a particularly promising investigational LA product for HIV prevention, with interim phase 3 clinical trial results demonstrating 100% efficacy in cisgender females age 16 to 25 years in Brazil, Peru, South Africa, and the United States(6). Lenacapavir is an antiviral that disrupts the HIV-1 capsid, interfering with several stages of the HIV replication cycle(7–9). Administered through twice yearly subcutaneous injections, lenacapavir has an extended half-life which provides a 6-month duration of HIV protection(9). As a first-in-class antiretroviral, lenacapavir is not expected to have overlapping drug resistance mutations with other antiretrovirals(8–10) and shows a favorable safety profile, suggesting potential for widespread use(7,11–13).

While lenacapavir has the potential to greatly expand PrEP coverage in ESA, its impact is contingent on its affordability, particularly in resource constrained settings which are disproportionately impacted by HIV. Evaluating realistic scenarios of lenacapavir uptake (informed by preference data) is crucial for informing price thresholds that enable cost-effective implementation, estimating product volume needed, and projecting health impact. We sought to estimate the health and economic impact of lenacapavir scale-up in South Africa, western Kenya, and Zimbabwe, countries that were early adopters of oral PrEP, suggesting favorable regulator environments for lenacapavir adoption. As the per-dose price of lenacapavir is still uncertain, we also estimated the maximum price threshold that achieves cost-effectiveness in each setting. Results can inform price negotiations and policy planning regarding lenacapavir implementation in ESA.

METHODS

RESULTS

In the main scenario, lenacapavir scale up was estimated to avert 18.0% of HIV infections in western Kenya, 17.0% in Zimbabwe, and 12.3% in South Africa during 10 years of implementation compared to the reference scenario of oral PrEP only (Table 2). Although the percentage of infections and deaths averted was lowest in South Africa, the absolute number of DALYs averted was greater due to higher HIV prevalence and population size (Supplemental Appendix 2: Table S3). Population-level lenacapavir coverage ranged from 1.4% in South Africa, 2.5% in western Kenya and 3.5% in Zimbabwe, with number of doses required over the first 5 years of implementation highest in South Africa (3,942,509), followed by Zimbabwe (501,406), and western Kenya (145,454). Utilizing a threshold of $500 per DALY averted, the maximum per-dose price to achieve cost-effectiveness was $106.28 in South Africa, $21.15 in Zimbabwe, and $16.58 in western Kenya. Under a lower threshold of $200 per DALY averted, per-dose prices decreased to $74.87 (South Africa), $11.68 (Zimbabwe), and $11.32 (western Kenya). Assuming a higher cost threshold ($1,175 per DALY averted for South Africa only) resulted in higher maximum per-dose prices: $177.09 for the baseline coverage and $146.67 for the higher coverage scenario. Assuming higher oral PrEP availability (3-times observed levels), did not impact the maximum price threshold: $108.21 in South Africa vs. $106.28 in the main analysis (Supplemental Appendix: Table S3).

Utilizing the per-dose price calculated in the main analysis (based on the $500 threshold), the 5-year budget impact of lenacapavir implementation was $4,086,333 in western Kenya, $16,803,502 in Zimbabwe and $507,252,479 in South Africa (Table 2). Costs were highest in South Africa which had the largest modeled population size and highest per-dose price. Costs increased with implementation year as lenacapavir scaled to targeted levels; for example, year one costs in Kenya were $108,500 vs. $1,284,802 in year 5; >90% of the budget impact was due to lenacapavir provision (Figure 1a and Appendix II Table S1). Cost savings due to HIV- related illness and ART averted increased over time but accounted for <2% of costs across settings. Although lenacapavir provision made up the largest portion of the budget impact, the highest total costs were due to ART provision (approximately 70% of total) (Figure 1b).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1.

In the higher coverage scenario, lenacapavir distribution reached 2.7-6.9% population coverage across settings and averted 33% of HIV infections in western Kenya, 31% in Zimbabwe, and 21% in South Africa over 10 years (Table 2). Both doses required and DALYs averted were nearly double that of the main scenario and the price threshold at $500/DALY averted was 10-18% lower across settings: $88.34 in South Africa, $17.71 in Zimbabwe, and $14.78 in western Kenya. The budget impact followed a similar pattern to the main scenario with lenacapavir provision accounting for most of the costs incurred. Cost savings from HIV-related illness and ART averted were higher but still represented a small proportion of the budget impact (5-8%) (Supplemental Appendix II Figures S3-5).

In sensitivity analyses evaluating lenacapavir distribution to varying subgroups of males and females, price thresholds were considerably higher for scenarios of lenacapavir for FSWs only: $589 in South Africa, $39 in Zimbabwe, and $23; however HIV infections averted were lowest (6-7%) (Table 3). HIV incidence reductions increased with expanding coverage to females with lower VOICE scores but price thresholds decreased. The effect of including males varied by scenario: in scenarios of lenacapavir provision to females with the highest HIV risk (e.g. FSWs and those with VOICE score >5), adding males lowered the price threshold considerably (up to 50%) but price thresholds were similar when adding males to scenarios of females with lower HIV risk (VOICE score>3 and VOICE score >1). In South Africa and Zimbabwe, including males was more efficient (in terms of price threshold and HIV infections averted) than expansion to next-highest-risk group of females across VOICE scores (Supplemental Appendix II Figures S1-2). However, in western Kenya, the opposite trend was observed with adding males being less efficient than expansion to the VOICE score across scenarios. Similar patterns were observed when evaluating the impact of adding male clients of FSWs to scenarios of females only instead of males >1 partner (Supplemental Appendix II Tables S4-15). Additional health impacts, volume of lenacapavir doses needed, and budget impact for all scenarios are available in Supplemental Appendix II (Tables S4-15).

DISCUSSION

In this modeling analysis, we evaluated the health and economic impact of lenacapavir scale up in western Kenya, Zimbabwe, and South Africa. We projected that lenacapavir provision at 1.4-3.5% population coverage can substantially decrease HIV incidence and can be cost-effectively implemented at a per-dose price of approximately $17 in western Kenya, $21 in Zimbabwe and $106 in South Africa. Although lenacapavir introduction can result in some cost- savings in the long-term from ART and hospitalizations averted, projected short-term budget impact was substantial, with costs increasing as lenacapavir is scaled up. In an era of shrinking donor funding for HIV programs, policymakers may weigh the impacts of lenacapavir implementation against other non-HIV health interventions which often have a lower cost- effectiveness threshold. Utilizing the threshold of $200/DALY averted reduced the price threshold for lenacapavir to $11 (western Kenya), $12, (Zimbabwe) and $75 (South Africa).

HIV incidence reductions and price thresholds were similar in western Kenya and Zimbabwe; however, the price threshold was 5-times higher in South Africa likely due to higher HIV prevalence and healthcare costs. The volume of lenacapavir doses needed is highest in South Africa (e.g. 7-times higher than Zimbabwe), due to the larger population size, which can inform policy negotiations, as South Africa can present a sizable market for lenacapavir that may sustain initially higher prices while production scales up. Utilizing a higher cost threshold of $1,175 per DALY averted increase the price threshold to $177, slightly higher than the main analysis. These findings also highlight the importance of country-specific analyses as budgetary impact, product volume, and price thresholds vary across settings due to differences in costs and HIV epidemics.

Health impacts and maximum price were sensitive to assumed lenacapavir uptake among subgroups with HIV risk indication. A strength of this analysis is that we conducted a comprehensive literature review of LA PrEP preferences among key groups and the general population in ESA to inform the inputs of our main analyses. In the higher uptake scenario, HIV infections averted increased by 10 percentage points across settings (compared to the main analysis), but per-dose price thresholds were 10-18% lower and doses required doubled. The relationships between health impacts, product volume and price threshold are illustrated by our sensitivity analysis exploring expansion by VOICE score. Lenacapavir provision to FSWs could sustain the highest price per-dose due to high HIV incidence in this group but population-level infections averted were low due to the relatively small number of FSWs. Price thresholds substantially decline with expanding lenacapavir coverage to populations with lower HIV risk and infections averted demonstrated diminishing marginal returns. Additionally, increased demand generation costs may be needed to reach broader coverage levels, which would increase program costs. Interestingly, including males with >1 partner was more efficient than expanding to the next highest risk female category in Zimbabwe and South Africa but not in western Kenya. This may be due to high coverage of voluntary medical male circumcision in western Kenya, which reduces HIV acquisition risk. At coverage of females with VOICE>1 and males with >1 partner, the price threshold decreased to $4 in western Kenya and Zimbabwe and $32 in South Africa; this is consistent with previous analyses that find that broad PrEP distribution in ESA is unlikely to be cost-effective unless PrEP costs are low(30,31). Taken together, these sensitivity analyses can provide insights to policy deliberations regarding the product volume that can be cost-effectively purchased at different price thresholds as countries may be able to commit to obtaining more doses of lenacapavir at lower prices.

To our knowledge this is the first modeling study to investigate the impact of lenacapavir scale up in ESA informed by data on PrEP preferences across subgroups. Our findings are within the range of a previous modeling study of CAB-LA implementation in a general ESA setting which projected that it would be cost-effective at 2.5% coverage at a cost of $57 per 6 months of use, which is lower than our estimate for South Africa but higher than that of Kenya and Zimbabwe (32). All other modeling studies of injectable LA PrEP we found in the published literature evaluated the setting of South Africa and demonstrated that LA PrEP could be cost- effective if provided to FSWs and young women with HIV risk indication (33). One study estimated that the threshold cost of CAB-LA in South Africa was $33-50 for 6 months of use, using the threshold of the same cost-effectiveness as oral PrEP (34). Our results contribute to the literature by estimating the health and economic impact of long-acting PrEP in ESA settings outside South Africa, which differs considerably from other regions in terms of health system costs and HIV epidemic.

We utilized PrEP provision costs from community settings such as pharmacies and assumed that making lenacapavir widely accessible will result in individuals aligning use with HIV risk. This is consistent with prior studies of oral PrEP in ESA which found that making PrEP easily accessible resulted in significant reductions in HIV incidence in the population despite low uptake rates, suggesting that individuals were effectively using PrEP during periods of HIV risk (25,35). We assumed a demand generation cost equivalent to 10% of the estimated per dose price to support educational campaigns to help individuals identify and target PrEP to times of HIV risk. If additional campaigns are needed to increase lenacapavir use among certain subgroups, or if lenacapavir is distributed through higher-resource home or mobile provision these costs may be underestimated. However, certain subgroups such as FSWs could sustain a higher price per-dose, indicating that more intensive outreach may be cost-effective due to higher incidence in this group. Future patterns of oral PrEP use in the context of LA products are uncertain; however our results were robust to scenarios of tripling oral PrEP use. This is likely due to the low levels of current use despite substantial efforts to increase coverage—tripling of low levels still resulted in a very small proportion of oral PrEP coverage.

Our analysis has several limitations. First, as lenacapavir is not yet available in ESA, we relied on stated preference literature to parameterize lenacapavir uptake, which may not align with observed behavior. However, evidence has shown that stated preferences are strongly correlated with actual user choices(36). Additionally, we conducted extensive sensitivity analyses varying lenacapavir uptake across populations with HIV risk indication. Second, we assumed lenacapavir efficacy was 95% in preventing HIV acquisitions among both sexes; however, clinical trial results are not yet available for cisgender men (13). If efficacy is lower than that observed in females, this analysis should be revisited. Third, we assume lenacapavir availability in ESA by 2026; delays in lenacapavir scale-up will likely result in lower price thresholds due to declining HIV incidence. Fourth, our model only simulates heterosexual mixing which accounts for the majority of the HIV epidemic in ESA; therefore, we cannot assess the impact of lenacapavir among men who have sex with men, or persons who inject drugs, who are important target groups for LA PrEP.

Strengths of this analysis include using an individual-based network model and evaluating uncertainty across 100 parameter sets in three ESA settings. We conducted a detailed literature review to inform cost assumptions. By including costs of HIV testing, lenacapavir delivery, demand generation, wastage, and HIV-related healthcare costs, we were able to isolate the product price of lenacapavir to better inform decision-making regarding lenacapavir purchasing and budgeting.

Overall, we found that lenacapavir can avert substantial HIV burden but prices will have to be affordable to ensure equitable and cost-effective distribution. Our findings are timely and can inform policy deliberations regarding price thresholds and product volume in an era of novel LA PrEP products.

DATA SHARING

Data used for the modeling can be found in the Supplemental appendix. EMOD-HIV is open-source and publicly available online: www.idmod.org/idmdoc.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

All authors contributed to conceptualization of the modeling question, provided substantive input into the modelling scenarios and assumptions, interpreted results, and critically reviewed manuscript drafts. LW, DK, CA, NP, MS and AB contributed to model development, and coding. LW, CA, NP, AS and BP conducted analysis of model outputs. MS wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation