Photo by Miguel Á. Padriñán: https://www.pexels.com/photo/syringe-and-pills-on-blue-background-3936368/
For oral medications that prevent new HIV infection to be effective, the patient must take certain actions, including attending doctor’s visits every three months and – most importantly – consistency.
These daily oral antiretrovirals, more commonly referred to as PrEP (pre-exposure prophylaxis), such as Truvada®, are extremely effective at HIV prevention, but only if they are taken daily as directed. Truvada’s efficacy is greatly compromised when taken inconsistently.
However, results from a recent Gilead-funded clinical trial (Purpose-2) led by physicians at Emory University and Grady Health System indicate that a twice-yearly injection of Lenacapavir offers a 96% reduced risk of infection overall, making the injection significantly more effective than the daily oral PrEP. The findings were recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
“Seeing these high levels of efficacy – at almost 100% – in an injectable that people only have to take every six months is incredible,” says Colleen Kelley, MD, lead author of the study and professor in the School of Medicine at Emory University. “This is a considerable and profound advancement in medicine, especially for people whose circumstances don’t allow them to take a daily oral medication, and for those among populations disproportionately impacted by HIV.”
In the randomised, double-blind, Phase III clinical trial comparing the efficacy of the two medications, 99% of the participants in the Lenacapavir group did not acquire an HIV infection. During the trial, only two participants in the Lenacapavir group, comprised of 2,179 people, acquired HIV. This compares to nine new HIV infections in the Truvada®group, which had 1,086 people. The trial showed that adherence to the injectable was higher than of the daily oral pill.
Kelley adds that while PrEP is incredibly effective at preventing infection, part of what made the injection more effective in the clinical trial was the challenges associated with adherence to a daily oral pill.
“What we see over time is that about half of people who start taking daily oral PrEP stop within a year due to various factors,” says Kelley, referencing healthcare disparities in general. “Having an effective injectable that is only needed twice annually is very significant for people who have trouble accessing healthcare or staying adherent to daily, oral pills.”
The inclusion of racially, ethnically, and gender-diverse participants in the clinical trial was notable because it was representative of populations disproportionately impacted by HIV in real time. For example, the trial groups were comprised of cisgender men and gender-diverse people at 88 sites in Peru, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, South Africa, Thailand, and the US.
According to the study, the same populations that are disproportionately impacted by HIV are the same populations that have limited access to PrEP – or may have difficulty consistently taking the oral antiretroviral medication – ultimately highlighting the need for more options. The study also indicates that more than half of the new HIV infections nationwide in 2022 were among cisgender gay men, and 70% of those were among Black or Hispanic individuals.
Valeria Cantos, MD, associate professor in the School of Medicine at Emory University, physician at Grady Memorial Hospital, and the principal investigator for the clinical trial at the Grady research site, emphasized the importance of having trials that include populations truly representative of the patients that Grady serves.
“At Grady, our focus is on increased representation of underserved and vulnerable populations, acknowledging and addressing the distrust towards research held by some community members due to prior abuses or neglect of these populations by research institutions in the past,” Cantos says. “Grady is an established, trusted research site because of its commitment to equity.”
At the Grady clinical trial site, medical materials were available in Spanish, and bilingual staff members recruited and enrolled trial participants who only spoke Spanish. Cantos also indicated that the site enrolled participants who are representative of the populations that would benefit the most from Lenacapavir. In addition to Grady, the Hope Clinic and Emory Midtown Hospital were among the 88 sites supporting the clinical trial.
“We are not reaching everyone we need to reach with our current HIV prevention interventions, such as those who are disproportionately impacted by HIV and health care disparities,” says Kelley. “For people that are unable to take the daily oral pills, the injectable agents can really give incredible efficacy and be a game changer in helping them stay HIV negative.”
Since the Phase III clinical trial has been completed and submitted by the FDA for consideration, Kelley is hopeful that Lenacapavir may be approved by 2025 for commercial use.
In June, we heard what could be this year’s biggest HIV breakthrough: a twice-yearly injection can prevent HIV infection. Findings from a second large study of the jab has now confirmed that it works. Elri Voigt goes over the new findings and unpacks the licenses that are expected to facilitate the availability of generic versions of the jab in over a hundred countries, including South Africa.
The second of two pivotal studies of a six-monthly HIV prevention injection containing the antiretroviral drug lenacapavir has confirmed that the jab works remarkably well.
The first study, called PURPOSE 1, found that the jab is safe and highly effective at preventing HIV infection in women. The second, called PURPOSE 2, found the same for cisgender men, transgender men, transgender women and non-binary people who have sex with men assigned male at birth.
Interim findings from PURPOSE 2 were presented last week at the HIV Research for Prevention (HIVR4P) conference in Lima, Peru.
The researchers compared the safety and efficacy of lenacapavir injections every six months to a daily HIV prevention pill – a combination of emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, called F/TDF. The results have not yet been published in a peer reviewed journal, but is expected to be soon, according to Principal Investigator for PURPOSE 2 Dr Colleen Kelley, a professor of medicine at Emory University’s School of Medicine.
In the PURPOSE 1 study, none of the 2 134 people receiving the lenacapavir injection got HIV during the study. In PURPOSE 2, there were two HIV infections among the 2 179 people receiving the injection. These numbers are dramatically better than those for HIV prevention pills and for people in the communities where the study was done who were not receiving prevention injections or pills.
These findings mean the evidence is now in place for the manufacturer, Gilead Sciences, to file with regulatory authorities to register lenacapavir injections for HIV prevention. Such registration is required before the jab can be marketed for prevention. Lenacapavir injections are already registered in some countries as a last resort treatment for HIV, but not yet in South Africa.
“Now that we have a comprehensive dataset across multiple study populations, Gilead will work urgently with regulatory, government, public health and community partners to ensure that, if approved, we can deliver twice-yearly lenacapavir for PrEP worldwide, for all those who want or need PrEP,” Daniel O’Day, the chairperson and Chief Executive Officer of Gilead said in a press release. (PrEP, or pre-exposure prophylaxis, refers to taking antiretrovirals to prevent HIV infection.)
Top line findings
The interim results presented at HIVR4P by Kelley, showed that when compared to the background HIV incidence calculated in the study, lenacapavir reduced HIV infections by 96%. And when compared to the F/TDF prevention pill, the injection reduced HIV infections by 89%.
Among the 3 265 participants enrolled in the study, 11 people acquired HIV- two of the 2 179 people who were assigned to the lenacapavir arm and nine of the 1 086 participants assigned to the prevention pill arm. This translated to HIV incidence of 0.93 per 100 person years in the prevention pill arm compared to only 0.1 per 100 person years in the lenacapavir arm.
This was compared to the background incidence, which was determined when screening eligible participants for HIV. Out of 4 634 people screened for the study, 378 or 8.2% were diagnosed with HIV. Based on further laboratory testing, it was estimated that of those 378 people, 45 or 11.9% recently acquired HIV (classified as being within the last 120 days or so). This latter group provided the background HIV incidence, which was estimated to be 2.37 per 100 person years.
This is a novel study design, Kelley told Spotlight, because this calculation was used to estimate the HIV incidence that would have occurred in a placebo group without actually enrolling a placebo group.
“It’s no longer ethical to have a placebo group in HIV PrEP trials because we know that we have effective PrEP agents,” she said. “Yet, it’s almost essential to have a placebo group when you design a clinical trial so that you can really say how effective your medication, your new agent is [compared] to having nothing.”
When asked at a press conference about the two breakthrough infections in the lenacapavir arm, Kelley said the analysis for this is ongoing and will hopefully be available at a future conference and in a journal soon. She said that the two breakthrough infections in the lenacapavir arm were detected by routine testing during the study.
Principal Investigator for PURPOSE 2 Professor Colleen Kelley at the 5th HIV Research for Prevention Conference in Lima, Peru. (Photo: Nicole Bergman/IAS)
Kelley added that around 90% of participants in the two study arms were able to receive their injection on time. “So, we at least know that the injections were delivered in a timely fashion for almost all participants,” she said.
Whether or not the two infections occurred in people who had received the jabs on time and according to the study protocol will be closely watched as more study details is shared in the coming months.
To be enrolled in the study, participants had to meet several criteria. They had to be older than 16, never received HIV prevention injections before, weigh more than 35kg, have good kidney function, not have been tested for HIV in the last 12 weeks, and had to have been sexually active in the last 12 months.
All study participants were given a pill a day and an injection, those in the lenacapavir arm received two 1.5 ml lenacapavir injections every six months and a daily placebo pill, while those in the prevention pill arm received the daily F/TDF pill and a placebo injection every six months.
The study was conducted across seven countries, with 6 sites located in South Africa and others in Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Peru, Thailand, and the United States, according to study data on Gilead’s website.
Safety data
Overall, Kelley said lenacapavir was safe and well-tolerated despite some side effects, mainly related to the injections. A total of 43 people dropped out of the study due to side effects.
The most common adverse event in the study was injection site reactions. There were more injection site reactions in the lenacapavir arm compared to the prevention pill arm. 29 people dropped out of the study because of these, 26 in the lenacapavir arm and 3 in the prevention pill arm (people in this study arm received placebo jabs).
The most common injection site reaction were subcutaneous nodules – these are harmless, usually invisible, small lumps under the skin. Nodules occur because lenacapavir is injected under the skin where it forms a drug depot. Injection site reactions and nodule size decreased with subsequent injections. This side effect and trend of decreasing reactions was also noted in the PURPOSE 1 study. Other injection site reactions were pain and erythema which is a type of skin rash.
According to Kelley, there were no serious adverse events related to injection site reactions.
When injection site reactions are excluded, according to Kelley, the other adverse events were similar across both arms, with 74% of participants in each arm experiencing an adverse event. The majority were mild or moderate.
Seven participants in each study arm dropped out due to side effects that weren’t related to injection site reactions. Those who discontinued from the lenacapavir arm will be given prevention pills for a year. This is done to protect these participants, Kelley explained, from potentially acquiring HIV when lenacapavir levels wane, as well as to reduce the risk of potential drug resistance developing.
There were a few serious adverse events, although Kelley told Spotlight she does not currently have any additional information on what these were. She explained that a serious adverse event is generally classified as something like hospitalisation, a life-threatening condition, an important medical event or adverse pregnancy outcome.
“Usually when we look at something like this, we look at the rates compared in the two arms of the study and it was 3% in the LEN [lenacapavir] arm and 4% in the F/TDF arm, so they were equal, essentially the same in both study arms,” Kelly said.
There were six deaths during the study, but none were related to the study drugs.
Next steps for lenacapavir
Now that the interim results have been announced, both studies have been unblinded and entered an open-label phase where participants have the choice of switching to or continuing with the injection.
Professor Linda-Gail Bekker, the Chief Executive Officer at the Desmond Tutu Health Foundation, recently said on a webinar hosted by the South African Health Technologies Advocacy Coalition, that study participants are now able to use the PrEP option they’d prefer – either oral PrEP or the injection. This means all participants will be able to access lenacapavir through the studies if they wanted to use it.
But it will likely be a while before anyone outside of these studies can access lenacapavir as HIV prevention.
“This is an incredible intervention. Now we have to make sure everyone can get it and that’s going to be the most important next step, ensuring that everyone who needs this drug has access,” Kelley told Spotlight.
Gilead’s generic licensing agreement and pricing
What we do know so far about the next steps for lenacapavir is that the process to allow for generic manufacturing has started. This month, Gilead released its voluntary licensing agreements with six generic companies for manufacturing cheaper versions of lenacapavir.
Dr Andrew Gray, a senior lecturer in Pharmacology at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, told Spotlight that no South African firms have been included in the voluntary licenses – four of the generic licensees are in India, one is in Pakistan, and one is in Egypt.
“In essence, they [the generic companies] are allowed to sell their generic versions in a number of identified countries, specified by Gilead,” Gray said. The agreement lists 120 countries, including South Africa.
Gilead itself will also be prioritising the registration of lenacapavir in 18 countries, which it said represent about 70% of the HIV burden in the countries named in the license. The list includes South Africa, Uganda, and Botswana. Gilead says it will start filing for registration with regulatory authorities by the end of the year.
It will be important to see how quickly Gilead seeks regulatory approval for lenacapavir with the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA), Gray said. Registration with SAHPRA will be required before the injection can be rolled out in South Africa.
In putting together this timeline, we’ve spoken to several well-placed experts, but we stress that this is very much a back-of-the-envelope exercise and far from set in stone. (Infograph: Spotlight)
Some countries won’t be able to procure generics
Gilead received criticism for several omissions from the list of countries that the generic manufacturers can sell to. The US-based HIV advocacy group AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, among others, pointed out the exclusion of several countries which have high HIV incidence. Some of those countries participated in PURPOSE 2- namely Brazil, Argentina, Mexico and Peru.
A spokesperson from Gilead told Spotlight the manufacturer’s access policy included tailored approaches to ensure rapid and broad access of lenacapavir and it objectively considered the countries where a voluntary licence would provide the most benefit.
“Gilead’s voluntary licence primarily covers countries based on economic need and HIV burden, which are primarily low- and lower-middle income countries. The voluntary licence also covers certain middle-income countries with limited access to healthcare,” the spokesperson said.
Acknowledging that some middle-income countries do have a high HIV burden, Gilead is “exploring several innovative strategies to support access to LEN for PrEP (if approved), including tiered pricing, and are working with payors to establish fast, efficient pathways to help reach people who need or want PrEP”, said the spokesperson.
“Ensuring access in middle-income and upper-middle income countries, including those in Latin America, is a priority for Gilead. Planning for these countries, incorporating input from advocates and global health organizations, is ongoing and updates will be shared as discussions progress,” the spokesperson added. “Additionally, Gilead is committed to ensuring that individuals who participated in the PURPOSE studies have been offered and will be able to stay on open label lenacapavir until it is available in their country.”
The company’s decision to license generic manufacturers directly is at odds with earlier calls from several activist groups and UNAIDS to license via the UN-backed Medicines Patent Pool.
Pricing
It will also be important to see if Gilead will disclose a single exit price for the South African market, according to Gray.
In its press release announcing the voluntary licensing agreement, Gilead stated it will “support low-cost access to the drug in high-incidence, resource-limited countries through a two-part strategy: establishing a robust voluntary licensing program and planning to provide Gilead-supplied product at no profit to Gilead until generic manufacturers are able to fully support demand”.
It is too early in the process to reveal a price for lenacapavir yet, the spokesperson from Gilead told Spotlight.
“While Gilead prepares for global regulatory filings, it is too early to disclose the price of lenacapavir for HIV prevention. Our pledge is to price our medicines to reflect the value they deliver to people, patients, healthcare systems and society. For Gilead-branded lenacapavir, we do plan to price it at no profit to Gilead in 18 select high-incidence, resource-limited countries until generic manufacturers are able to fully support demand,” the spokesperson said.
Spotlight previously reported on research that estimated that if produced at sufficient volumes, the price of lenacapavir could be drastically reduced to levels likely considered affordable by the South African government. For instance, if enough volume was produced to supply 10 million people with PrEP, the price for the injection could be as low as $40 (under R800) per person per year. At the moment, Gilead supplies lenacapavir for HIV treatment in wealthy countries for about $40 000 per person per year.
Gilead’s lenacapavir product will be the first to register in South Africa and will almost certainly be the only lenacapavir product available here for several years – that is because it is expected to take generic manufacturers a few years before they can start producing generic lenacapavir. Based on calculations made for other PrEP products, it seems unlikely that the Department of Health would be willing to procure lenacapavir at a price significantly above R1 000 per person per year. The HIV prevention pill currently costs government around R800 per person per year.
Finalised data published in the New England Journal of Medicine, has confirmed the stunning results of a trial in which a twice-yearly dose of lenacapavir completely prevented HIV infection in a group of adolescent girls and women in South Africa and Uganda.
A major challenge with HIV prophylaxis with cisgender women is adherence and persistence with daily oral regimens. The twice-yearly subcutaneous injection of lenacapavir helps to circumvent these problems by offering extended protection.
Based on the initial results announced by Gilead Sciences on the 20th of June, the PURPOSE 1 phase 3 clinical trial met its key efficacy endpoints of superiority of twice-yearly lenacapavir to once-daily oral (emtricitabine 200mg and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate 300mg; F/TDF) and background HIV incidence. Given the strength of these results, the blinded phase of the trial was halted and open-label lenacapavir was offered to all participants.
The double-blind, randomised, controlled trial recruited 5338 participants who were initially HIV-negative. They were randomised 2:2:1 ratio to receive subcutaneous lenacapavir every 26 weeks, daily oral emtricitabine–tenofovir alafenamide (F/TAF), or daily oral F/TDF (active control); all participants also received the alternate subcutaneous or oral placebo. They compared the efficacy of lenacapavir and F/TAF with F/TDF against the estimated background incidence of HIV infection.
Among the 2134 participants in the lenacapavir group, there were 0 infections (0 per 100 person-years). Meanwhile in the F/TAF group, there were 39 infections among 2136 participants (2.02 per 100 person-years) and 16 infections among the F/TDF group’s 1068 participants (1.69 per 100 person-years).
HIV incidence with lenacapavir was significantly lower than background HIV incidence and than HIV incidence with F/TDF. HIV incidence with F/TAF did not differ significantly from background HIV incidence, and no evidence of a meaningful difference in HIV incidence was observed between F/TAF and F/TDF.
The researchers did note that adherence to F/TAF and F/TDF was low. While no safety concerns were found, injection-site reactions were more common in the lenacapavir group (68.8%) than in the placebo injection group (F/TAF and F/TDF combined) (34.9%); 4 participants in the lenacapavir group (0.2%) discontinued the trial regimen owing to injection-site reactions.
Photo by Miguel Á. Padriñán: https://www.pexels.com/photo/syringe-and-pills-on-blue-background-3936368/
Over the last four years South Africa has taken large strides in making HIV prevention pills available at public sector clinics, but uptake has not been as good as some may have hoped. Thabo Molelekwa asks several experts why this might be.
HIV prevention pills, also referred to as oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), contain a combination of two antiretroviral medicines. They are highly effective at preventing HIV infection when taken as prescribed by someone not living with HIV.
But while the pills are now available through most public sector clinics in the country, not as many people are using them as one might have expected. According to the most recent estimates from Thembisa, the leading mathematical model of HIV in South Africa, only around 4% of sexually active adolescent girls and young women used PrEP in 2022. This is a substantial improvement on 0.6% in 2020, but given that the rate of new HIV infections in adolescent girls and young women has remained stubbornly high, one may have expected this number to be higher by now.
“So the rates of uptake are definitely increasing in South Africa, but not to the point that we would hope. There’s still definitely a gap between people who would benefit from being on PrEP or alternative HIV prevention methods and those who are actually accessing the biomedical daily oral prevention,” says Cheryl Hendrickson, a Senior Researcher at the Health Economics and Epidemiology Research Office (HE²RO) at the University of the Witwatersrand.
Ongoing stigma
One explanation for uptake not being better is the ongoing impact of HIV-related stigma. A recent study conducted among young people in Gauteng found that stigma and a lack of confidentiality continue to impede PrEP adoption. The researchers identified several barriers for PrEP-naive participants, including limited knowledge, negative staff attitudes, and misconceptions about side effects. Structural factors like healthcare provider bias and a lack of culturally sensitive interventions were also found to hinder PrEP uptake. The research was conducted by HE²RO – Hendrickson was a co-author.
“Participants were worrying about their families or friends thinking they were taking ARVs,” says Constance Mongwenyana-Makhutle, a research associate and co-author of the study.
Professor Linda-Gail Bekker, CEO of the Desmond Tutu HIV Centre, also emphasises the persistent role of stigma. “People don’t want to be associated with HIV, HIV risk or any misconception that they may be living with HIV and on antiretroviral therapy,” she tells Spotlight.
The perception around PrEP, says Dr Fareed Abdullah, Director of AIDS and TB Research at the South African Medical Research Council, is similar to that of contraception. “Basically, a young person would consider it an admission that they are sexually active and consider themselves to be at risk of HIV; thereby inviting judgement and stigma from others, especially healthcare workers,” he says.
Not enough awareness?
Closely related to the issue of stigma is awareness. Here COVID-19 may have played a role. As the provision of PrEP through public sector clinics gained momentum in 2020, many potential PrEP users would have stayed away from clinics due to pandemic-related restrictions and fear of contracting SARS-CoV-2. The pandemic also meant that any plans to build awareness of PrEP would have had a hard time finding purchase, at least in 2020 and 2021.
Reflecting on past HIV awareness campaigns, Bekker stresses the need for increased public demand creation for PrEP
“I think we have not had enough public demand creation- if you think of the campaigns for getting people to take up COVID vaccines….then we really haven’t done enough in this regard. It is a new concept- a pill a day to prevent HIV ……and so people need to have the idea socialised and normalised so that there is also a reduction in stigma,” she says.
What happens at the clinic
Another barrier to PrEP uptake is likely that while PrEP is being made available through public sector clinics, not everyone feels welcome at, or like to visit, their local clinic.
Bekker says youth complain that government clinics are often a barrier for them to access PrEP. “Their hours, their long queues, their discrimination and sometimes the prejudicial attitudes drive young people away,” she says.
Bekker argues that some of these barriers would be removed if HIV prevention measures was taken outside of health facilities and into community spaces.
“PrEP for young people in the public sector is free. If they want to use private pharmacies though, they would need to pay currently. I think more can be done to make PrEP and other sexual and reproductive health services more readily available so that young people, in a way, have no excuses not to make sure they are using them … colleges, universities and even secondary schools could also reach more young people. If we want to reduce STIs and unintended pregnancies in our adolescents, we are going to have to be sure there are very few barriers to these contraceptive and prophylactic services,” says Bekker.
Hendrickson points out that there are several projects around the country that are looking at alternative service delivery methods. “There’s a project that’s looking at prep delivery in pharmacies. Currently, they are providing oral prep, and hopefully soon, they will provide injectable prep within several pharmacies in Gauteng and the Western Cape,” she says. According to her, the pharmacy model appeals especially to men.
Healthcare worker attitudes and training
Related to the issue of visiting public healthcare facilities to access PrEP, healthcare worker attitudes and training has also been flagged as a concern.
Bekker says some health care professionals are not trained to deal with young people in their diversity. “Adolescents are a very distinct population – they can be offended, they value their privacy, and they can make health choices and decisions but need supportive, empathic and tailored information that they can use,” she says.
Abdullah makes a similar point. If some health care workers are properly trained, can identify people at high-risk and understand the efficacy of the intervention, then the vast majority would follow and offer the service in a professional manner, he says.
Ritshidze, a community-based healthcare monitoring group, say they have observed an increase in the number of healthcare facilities where staff say they prioritise offering PrEP to members of key populations such as young women and adolescent girls or men who have sex with men. Of 394 clinic staff surveyed earlier this year, 97% said they prioritise young women and adolescent girls.
But when Ritshidze asked users of healthcare facilities whether they’ve been offered PrEP, the numbers were much lower. “Compared to data collected in 2022, our 2023 data report a lower percentage of people saying they have been offered PrEP for most population groups,” Ritshidze say in a recent report. Complaints about negative staff attitudes have been a running theme in Ritshidze’s reports on public sector healthcare facilities over the last three years.
Actual and perceived risk
Abdullah suggests another barrier to PrEP uptake. There is a perception that HIV is no longer an urgent priority and that the risk of infection is low. This, he says, has led to lower public awareness of the importance of behaviour change and the need for young people at risk to protect themselves.
Recent data from a Human Sciences Research Council survey and the District Health Barometer indicate that condom use is declining in South Africa. While the reasons for the decline are not clear, one theory is that it is driven by the perceived risk of HIV infection having reduced over time.
Will more choice help?
Currently only oral PrEP is routinely available in the public sector, but PrEP in the form of a two-monthly injection and a monthly vaginal ring have been approved by the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority and is being offered to people taking part in pilot projects. It is likely that the prevention injection will become much more widely available once its price drops sufficiently – which is anticipated to happen once generic manufacturers enter the market in around three years’ time. Products that combine PrEP and a contraceptive into a single pill or injection are also under development.
Mitchell Warren, director of Avac, a global HIV advocacy organisation, is optimistic about people being offered a choice between the three types of PrEP. While condoms were widely available in public clinics in the 1990s, Warren says he noted the desire of people to buy condoms from spaza shops, shebeens, or pharmacies. This didn’t replace clinic supplies, he clarifies, but it did bring into sharper focus the importance of providing choice to people.
“But even with three different PrEP options, what we clearly have known for many years now is that PrEP is not only about the products, PrEP is really a programme, helping people identify not just their personal risk, but their desires, what they want and need out of relationships,” he says.
Government perspective
Foster Mohale, spokesperson for the National Department of Health, says the department is aware of reports of youth experiencing problems accessing PrEP at healthcare facilities.
Mohale maintains that healthcare workers are sufficiently trained to provide comprehensive HIV prevention services to all groups of people. He says that clinicians, counsellors, health promotors and peer educators have access to online training platforms. “These training modules are availed offline on flash drives to facilitate access to facilities and health care providers that do not have easy access to wifi or data to access the online version of the training materials,” he says.
Taking antiretrovirals to prevent HIV infection is available in the form of pills, vaginal rings, and injections. (File photo: Nasief Manie/Spotlight)
A new HIV prevention injection is now available to a select number of people in South Africa. That a single shot provides two months of protection is one of the injection’s major selling points. In this story, Elri Voigt unpacks how much of the jab is available, who is choosing to get it and what other anti-HIV drugs are being rolled out.
By Elri Voigt for Spotlight
Earlier this month, a young person in Cape Town became one of the first people in the country to receive a new HIV prevention injection outside of a clinical trial. The injection contains a long-acting formulation of the antiretroviral drug cabotegravir (CAB-LA for short). It provides two months of protection against HIV infection per shot.
“We were excited and nervous at the same time because (we) didn’t know how this person is going to react to an injection,” said Pakama Mapukata, a nurse and study coordinator. She added that the first person who received the CAB-LA injection responded well and told her that the injection was less painful than an sexually transmitted infection (STI) injection they had to receive in the past.
While the injection is not readily available for most members of the public just yet, a select number of people in the country will be able to access it via several implementation studies, also called pilot projects. One of these pilots is a study called FAST PrEP, conducted by the Desmond Tutu Health Foundation (DTHF) in Cape Town. Technically, access to the injection is limited to a FAST PrEP sub study called Prepare to Choose.
Taking antiretrovirals to prevent HIV infection is referred to as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). PrEP is available in the form of pills, vaginal rings, and injections.
According to Elzette Rousseau, a social behavioural scientist and the lead co-investigator in the implementation team for FAST PrEP, on the first day it was offered, five people opted to get the CAB-LA shot. “The first two, at least, that came through was a young MSM [men who have sex with men] and one was a young woman, which is definitely exciting because that is the population that we would want to come to our services which will benefit most from it,” she said. As of 21 February, 19 injections in total had been administered.
‘Real-world experience’
Professor Linda-Gail Bekker, Chief Executive Officer of the DTHF and Principal Investigator of the study, explained that once CAB-LA demonstrated efficacy in phase three clinical trials, it was decided to first do some implementation science studies in the country, alongside the other new PrEP option which is the dapivirine vaginal ring (DPV-VR), before rolling it out in the public sector.
Both the CAB-LA injection and the dapivirine ring have been approved by the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA). Prevention pills, also called oral PrEP, were approved several years earlier and are already widely available in the public sector and at pharmacies.
She explained the idea is that these implementation studies can help transition the product from the clinical trial setting to a real-world rollout in the public sector. Essentially the pilots would serve as a way of introducing the injectable and the ring on a smaller scale and lessons learnt from the pilots could be used to inform the future, larger rollout of these products. It also helps pick up any potential issues or safety concerns that may not have been seen in the clinical trials.
She added that pilot projects also help inform what the demand for a product like CAB-LA and the DPV-VR will be, which can help with advocacy efforts and give the manufacturers and companies who create generic products an idea of whether it’s worth investing in these products.
“There really are limited pilots going on in the country to date,” Bekker said. The pilots that are offering CAB-LA in addition to the DTHF are being conducted by Ezintsha and Africa Health Research Institute (AHRI), as well as the Wits Reproductive Health and HIV Institute (Wits RHI). Spotlight reported on this in-depth last year.
CAB-LA delays
Bekker told Spotlight the volumes of CAB-LA available in the country remain constrained for now.
While SAHPRA approved the injection in late 2022, limited supply and the product’s high price has limited uptake around the world. A recent HIV investment case for South Africa found the injection not to be cost-effective at the current price compared to PrEP in the form of pills. For now, the only supplier of CAB-LA is the pharmaceutical company ViiV Healthcare. Generic products are anticipated to enter the market in three to four years.
Despite SAHPRA approval for the product, the pilot projects have experienced delays in getting CAB-LA to their participants. As Spotlight reported last year, the National Department of Health stated that there were challenges getting the CAB-LA injections donated for the implementation studies into the country as the packaging did not meet South African regulatory requirements.
Bekker said that an alternative is to import CAB-LA through a phase 3b study (in this case the Prepare to Choose study), approved by SAHPRA’s Clinical Trial committee. Writing up protocols and having the study approved by an ethics committee and SAHPRA took some time, and once it was approved, CAB-LA still needed to be imported and ViiV Healthcare had to ramp up manufacturing to meet demand.
Bekker told Spotlight that to date, CAB-LA has not yet been purchased by the National Department of Health for distribution to the public, and the only other way to get CAB-LA into the country will be through a donation by the United States President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR).
“PEPFAR has been able to import the product into Zambia and Malawi…as the first two PEPFAR countries to get it as a PEPFAR donated public rollout and we hope South Africa is in that queue further down the line,” she said.
The Prepare to Choose Study
At the moment, Prepare to Choose can only offer CAB-LA to a few hundred people. Bekker said that ideally, they would have wanted to offer all their FAST PrEP clients a three-way choice of either the vaginal ring, oral PrEP pills or CAB-LA. But for now, CAB-LA is only being offered within Prepare to Choose, which is a single-nested sub study within FAST PrEP.
Mapukata, who was present during the first CAB-LA injection in the implementation study, said it will be interesting to see what participants choose now that they have an additional PrEP option. “People have been waiting for injection for the longest time, so we are seeing lots of excitement from the participant side,” she said.
Rousseau told Spotlight that Prepare to Choose currently has enough CAB-LA doses for 900 participants over an 18-month period.
She said they have thus far observed that “people are still choosing what [PrEP option] suits them” when offering existing or potential FAST PrEP participants the choice to access CAB-LA.
So far those who have chosen CAB-LA are primarily adolescent girls and young women with an average age of 22. Some have been on PrEP before, while others are starting PrEP for the first time. “In that cohort we know that the burden of HIV exists, so that’s encouraging at this point,” Rousseau said.
Trends observed in FAST PrEP
FAST PrEP is being implemented at 12 public sector health facilities in the Klipfontein and Mitchells Plain Health Sub-Districts in the Western Cape, as well as in four mobile clinics that operate in the area. Since the start of FAST PrEP, just under 11 000 participants have enrolled, according to Rousseau. This means that around 11 000 people have accessed either prevention pills or the DPV-VR through the study.
When FAST PrEP started, the assumption was that the study can enrol between 20 000 and 23 000 participants, but it is not necessarily targeting to enrol that exact number of participants. Rousseau added that the study currently has funding to continue offering PrEP until late next year but access to these options may potentially continue beyond that.
The study reaches participants in public sector healthcare facilities by having two peer navigators in each facility. These peer navigators are young people trained and employed by the study coordinators. They can educate and counsel young people about FAST PrEP. The study coordinators also offer training, particularly sensitisation training, to nurses and other staff members.
The four mobile clinics travel around the Klipfontein and Mitchells Plain Health Sub-Districts, particularly where there is a high incidence of HIV, as well as spaces where young people are present. These include 16 secondary schools in the area where the mobile clinics have permission to enter the school grounds.
Demand for the DPV-VR
Rousseau told Spotlight that so far, just under 200 women in the study have chosen to use the DPV-VR. However, it’s important to note that within the whole study population, not everyone is eligible to use the ring. It is currently being offered to women who are over 18, not pregnant and not breastfeeding.
She added that for participants who are eligible for both the ring and oral PrEP, the pill is still more popular – with a rough estimate of around 15% of eligible participants opting for the ring. Most participants, at this stage, who choose to use the ring are those who have tried oral PrEP first and struggle to take pills daily or found it doesn’t suit their lifestyle. Very few participants to date have started on the ring and then switched to the daily pill.
Dapivirine vaginal ring. Credit: Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health
She said the demographics of who prefers the ring over oral PrEP haven’t been explored in-depth, but it’s something that the study will be looking at and analysing data on in future.
Bekker added to this saying: “We always expected it to be a bit of a niche product because you know definitely for many the idea of swallowing a pill is perhaps an easier concept than using a vaginal ring. So, it has started slowly, we’ve now administered hundreds as opposed to thousands of rings.”
She noted that interest in the ring has built overtime and is starting to pick up more. “Our first, preliminary data suggests that the women who choose rings are coming back [for it] …they’ve decided they want to go that road and they’ve committed,” Bekker said.
Counselling for Choice
While the ring was found to be effective in two phase 3 trials, its efficacy in those trials was far from 100% and the evidence for the ring’s efficacy is generally less impressive than that for pills and the injection. Interpreting findings from PrEP trials is also somewhat muddied by whether or not pills are taken as prescribed, and the ring is used and replaced as prescribed – that a single shot provides two months of protection is one of the injection’s major selling points.
Compared to placebo, there was a 30% reduction in HIV infection for ring users in phase three trials, while there was a 50 to 60% reduction in infection when the ring went to open-label, Bekker noted.
She said that it has previously been observed that clinical trial efficacy results can differ from real-world results, particularly when it comes to HIV prevention. For instance, she said, oral PrEP in clinical trials initially showed no evidence of efficacy in the prevention of HIV in women. Yet, real-world evidence showed it works in all populations if taken as prescribed.
What both these cases have shown, according to Bekker, is that it’s not necessarily that the product isn’t working, it’s that the product isn’t always being used as intended. When it comes to the ring, she said, the drug within the ring is efficacious and will kill the virus, but the ring must be present at the time that the individual is exposed to HIV. “Once you take the ring out, the [prevention] effect is lost,” she said.
When asked how women are counselled about the ring in the FAST PrEP study, Bekker said it is done very carefully and with guidance of their peers – this is where the peer navigators play a big role.
FAST PrEP was designed using a lot of engagement from young people, Bekker said. For a year before the pilot started, a group of 100 young people from diverse populations were enrolled from the community to give feedback on how to design the pilot so it can best reach young people. This group also essentially helped troubleshoot the information coming from the pilot to ensure that the PrEP choices were communicated in an appropriate way.
“They are very instrumental at the moment in making sure that that message [on DPV-VR] is clearly communicated,” she said.
Bekker added that if an individual needs time to think about which PrEP option to use, they are advised to start with oral PrEP and that they can switch later if they want.
Mapukata explained how the counselling process plays out on the ground. Participants in FAST PrEP, once they have spoken to a peer navigator, are taken into a counselling room and given a quiz where their scores are used to indicate what PrEP option might work for them. This is used as a starting point to counsel participants about the different PrEP options and which options they are eligible for and most comfortable using.
“It’s a lot of counselling that goes in before that choice [of PrEP] is made,” Mapukata said.
Young people who are members of the FAST PrEP youth reference group speak of the project in glowing terms. “And it’s so nice because you have a variety to choose from, you’re not obligated [to only] be on PrEP, on the oral, because there’s a variety of options,” one of them told Spotlight.
The South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA) has authorised an injection containing the antiretroviral cabotegravir for use to prevent HIV infection, according to drugmaker ViiV Healthcare.
“We are very pleased that this week, SAHPRA granted regulatory approval of Apretude or cabotegravir long-acting injectable,” ViiV Healthcare spokesperson Catherine Hartley told Spotlight. “It brings a much-needed innovative HIV prevention option to the communities that need it most, including women and adolescent girls where challenges with adherence, limited efficacy, and stigma have hindered the impact of current PrEP options.”
At the time of publication, SAHPRA had not yet confirmed the registration, although Spotlight understands a media statement on the issue is imminent. The regulator received ViiV Healthcare’s initial application for approval in November 2021.
ViiV Healthcare has not disclosed at what price it will offer the shot in South Africa or other African countries. The company has, through a deal with the Geneva-based Medicines Patent Pool, agreed to grant voluntary licenses to at least three generic producers that could potentially supply the injection to South Africa. It is however expected to take three to five years before any of the generics will be ready.
Executive Director of the HIV prevention organisation AVAC confirmed news of the authorisation late Wednesday in a social media post, calling it a critical step in making the injection available to millions that could benefit from the shot.
The bi-monthly shot likely outperformed the pill, the World Health Organization explains in new guidelines, mainly because it was easier for people to get an injection every two months than to take the pills every day.
Previously, Spotlight reported that pilot projects are slated to begin providing access to the HIV prevention shot early next year. Demonstration projects run in partnership with the national health department and research organisations the Wits Reproductive Health and HIV Institute and Ezintsha are expected to offer patients a choice of the HIV prevention shot, pill, or monthly vaginal ring.
The pilot projects, sometimes called “demonstration” projects, will be looking to help answer major questions about an eventual national rollout, including how to create national awareness campaigns about the HIV prevention injection and how to provide it outside of hospitals and clinics and closer to communities.
SAHPRA authorisation marks the first step toward an eventual national rollout, according to national health department HIV prevention technical advisor Hasina Subedar. Subedar spoke to Spotlight in July at the International AIDS Conference. In particular, the finer details of the registration – which are still not public – will guide who can and can’t receive the shot, for instance.
Colourised transmission electron micrograph of monkeypox virus particles (green) cultivated and purified from cell culture. Credit: NIAID
A brief research report in Annals of Internal Medicine documents positive monkeypox virus PCR results found in anal samples taken from asymptomatic MSM (men who have sex with men). These findings suggest that vaccination limited to those with known exposure to the monkeypox virus may not be an effective strategy for preventing infection.
The findings come as the World Health Organization has renamed the variants, or clades, of monkeypox from their previous geographically-derived names to Roman numerals, eg, the former Congo Basin (Central African) clade is now Clade one (I). It is also seeking inputs on a possible new name for the virus in order to avoid stigmatisation.
Researchers from Bichat–Claude Bernard Hospital, Paris, retrospectively performed testing for monkeypox virus on all anorectal swabs that were collected as part of a sexually transmitted infection screening program. This type of screening is performed every three months among MSM with multiple sexual partners who are either taking HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) or living with HIV and receiving antiretroviral treatment. Of the 200 asymptomatic persons screened that were negative for N. gonorrhoeae and C. trachomatis, 13 (6.5%) samples were PCR positive for monkeypox virus. Two of the 13 later developed symptoms of monkeypox.
While it is not know whether asymptomatic transmission will play a role in the current worldwide monkeypox epidemic and the mode of human-to-human transmission may provide evidence that asymptomatic or preclinical spread can occur. In an accompanying editorial, Stuart N. Isaacs, MD, at the University of Pennsylvania, suggests that an expanded ring vaccination strategy and other public health interventions in the highest-risk communities are likely needed to help control the outbreak.
