from the trials (approximately 5% to 7% after
entering the long-term follow-up phase).
The results existed at week 48 as the virologic
responses became significant, which is the standard
time frame used in the HIV-1 trial and is consistent
with the shortest analysis duration recommended by
the FDA for virological endpoints. The trial is
ongoing and the planned duration is 120 to 148
weeks.
In FLAIR, virologic failure was reported in 2.1
percent and 2.5 percent of patients in the CAB + RPV
and CART groups, respectively, with HIV-1 RNA
levels of 50 copies/mL or above at week 48. In
CART, 1.6 percent of patients in the CAB + RPV
group and 1.0 percent in the CART group. In FLAIR,
CAB + RPV and CART scored 94 percent and 93
percent, respectively, while in ATLAS, CAB + RPV
and CART scored 93 percent and 95 percent,
respectively. At week 48, HIV-1 RNA was less than
50 copies/mL. In FLAIR and ATLAS, treatment
differences were 0.4 percent (95 percent CI, 3.7 to
4.5) and 3.0 percent, respectively. It shows that there
isn't much of a difference between CAB+RPV and
CART effectiveness. The 96-week results confirm the
48-week findings, indicating that long-acting
cabotegravir and rilpivirine are non-inferior to
maintaining a standard care regimen in individuals
with HIV-1 for viral suppression maintenance. These
findings suggest the long-acting cabotegravir and
rilpivirine as a treatment choice for virally suppressed
people with HIV-1 over a nearly 2-year period.
3.2 AE and Model Health-Related
Quality of Life
In both studies, the CAB + RPV group had higher
AEs than those in the CART group in the process of
the maintenance. In ATLAS and FLAIR, more than
90% of patients in the CAB + RPV group had at least
one AE across trials, whereas in ATLAS and FLAIR,
the overall prevalence of AEs in the CART group was
71 percent and 80 percent, respectively. Most of AEs
were classified as grade 1 or 2. The revealed higher
occurrence of AEs was due in part to a variety of ISRs
caused by the monthly IM injections. Another trial
suggests that the observed AE profile with CAB +
RPV LA treatment was identical to that in the CAR
arm, omitting ISRs, and is consistent with the
previously oral therapy. Despite the fact that ISRs are
widespread (they account for 25% of all injections),
the majority of them are moderate (99 percent grade
1 or 2). Throughout the trial, the overall incidence of
ISRs rapidly declined from 70% at week 4 to 16% at
week 48, and the length of ISRs was brief (median 3
days). These findings show that the initial high rate of
ISRs was due to the introduction of a novel treatment
administration method (IM injection), with a lower
rate over time as participants got more comfortable
with the injection process.
HRQoL can be a valuable data for us to evaluate
the patients’ prognosis. In that case, HIVTSQ, PIN,
ACCEPT, HAT-QoL, NRS, and SF-12 are used to
evaluate a variety of characteristics of HRQoL, such
as acceptance of an injectable regimen and issues that
may arise as a result of it. In ATLAS, the HIVTSQs
and PIN results were statistically significant in favor
of the CAB + RPV group, but this was not the case in
FLAIR (after adjusting for multiplicity). The other
measurements revealed that CAB + RPV had a
numerical advantage in terms of patients' HRQoL.
None of these analyses were multiplicity-adjusted,
except the total score of HIVTSQs and PIN, hence the
results should be regarded with care. (Clinical
Review Report)
4 PHARMACOECONOMIC
RESULT
Pharmacoeconomic research of CABENUVA has
been made by ViiV and CADTH using the Markov
cohort state transition model to discover its cost and
QALY to evaluate the value of this drug as a
treatment to HIV, especially comparing with oral
ART administration. The result was shown below in
Figure 5.
Figure 5: Annual Cost comparison between HIV treatments.
In comparison to combined oral ART, CAB+RPV
has lower overall costs and less total QALYs, as
indicated in the figure, indicating that it is not cost-
effective. The overall estimated cost of CAB + RPV
during the patient's lifetime is $647,491, whereas the
total estimated cost of oral contraceptives ART is
$646,865. The two comparisons generated similar life
years (CAB + RPV = 24.33; oral contraceptives ART
= 24.21) and QALY (18.05 and 17.96). The major
cause of the discrepancies in predicted QALYs was