Background: Long-acting injectable cabotegravir, a drug taken every 2 months, has been shown to be more effective at preventing HIV infection than daily oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine, but its cost-effectiveness in a high-prevalence setting is not known. We aimed to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of long-acting injectable cabotegravir compared with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine in South Africa, using methods standard to government planning, and to determine the threshold price at which long-acting injectable cabotegravir is as cost-effective as tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine.

Methods: In this modelled economic evaluation and threshold analysis, we updated a deterministic model of the South African HIV epidemic with data from the HPTN 083 and HPTN 084 trials to evaluate the effect of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine and long-acting injectable cabotegravir provision to heterosexual adolescents and young women and men aged 15-24 years, female sex workers, and men who have sex with men. We estimated the average intervention cost, in 2021 US$, using ingredients-based costing, and modelled the cost-effectiveness of two coverage scenarios (medium or high, assuming higher uptake of long-acting injectable cabotegravir than tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine throughout) and, for long-acting injectable cabotegravir, two duration subscenarios (minimum: same pre-exposure prophylaxis duration as for tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine; maximum: longer duration than tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine) over 2022-41.

Findings: Across long-acting injectable cabotegravir scenarios, 15-28% more new HIV infections were averted compared with the baseline scenario (current tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine roll-out). In scenarios with increased coverage with oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine, 4-8% more new HIV infections were averted compared with the baseline scenario. If long-acting injectable cabotegravir drug costs were equal to those of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine for the same 2-month period, the incremental cost of long-acting injectable cabotegravir to the HIV programme was higher than that of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine (5-10% vs 2-4%) due to higher assumed uptake of long-acting injectable cabotegravir. The cost per infection averted was $6053-6610 (tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine) and $4471-6785 (long-acting injectable cabotegravir). The cost per long-acting cabotegravir injection needed to be less than twice that of a 2-month supply of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine to remain as cost-effective, with threshold prices ranging between $9·03 per injection (high coverage; maximum duration) and $14·47 per injection (medium coverage; minimum duration).

Interpretation: Long-acting injectable cabotegravir could potentially substantially change HIV prevention. However, for its implementation to be financially feasible across low-income and middle-income countries with high HIV incidence, long-acting injectable cabotegravir must be reasonably priced.

Funding: United States Agency for International Development, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.