Cost-effectiveness of long-acting cabotegravir/rilpivirine for people with HIV and adherence challenges at the Ward 86 clinic: an intermediate outcome analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Long-acting injectable cabotegravir-rilpivirine (CAB/RPV-LA) is a promising treatment alternative for people with HIV (PWH) who face adherence challenges with oral antiretroviral therapy (ART). While its clinical efficacy is well documented, cost-effectiveness data from real-world settings remain limited. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the incremental first-year cost and cost-effectiveness of CAB/RPV-LA versus standard of care (SoC) oral ART among PWH with adherence challenges, from the perspective of a healthcare payer. METHODS: A cohort of 59 PWH initiating CAB/RPV-LA at Ward 86, a San Francisco-based clinic, was analyzed. Viral suppression (VS) rates and treatment costs were compared between CAB/RPV-LA and SoC ART. Cost-effectiveness was assessed using incremental cost per newly virally-suppressed PWH and net monetary benefit (NMB). Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate parameter uncertainty. RESULTS: CAB/RPV-LA achieved a VS rate of 92%, compared to an estimated 15% with SoC ART. The estimated first-year cost of CAB/RPV-LA delivery was $67 041 per patient versus $50 668 for SoC. The incremental cost per newly virally-suppressed PWH was $21 264. CAB/RPV-LA is the most cost-effective option at any willingness-to-pay above this level. The NMB was $243 721 suggesting favorable cost-effectiveness. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these results. CONCLUSIONS: Initiating CAB/RPV-LA for PWH with viremia suggests highly favorable cost-effectiveness. Results are sensitive to the costs of antiretroviral drugs, but not to variations in personnel costs or rates of viral suppression within plausible input ranges.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".