Evidence Hub

Efficacy of Long-Acting Injectable Cabotegravir and Rilpivirine Compared With Daily Oral Antiretroviral Therapy in Patients With HIV: A Systematic Review

Endara-Mina J, Quishpe M, Vera E, Haro N, Guzmán A, Guillin J, Quisnancela K, Sarmiento-Vallejo H et al.

Cureus, 2026

5,619 participants

Abstract

Long-acting antiretroviral therapy (ART) has emerged as an innovative strategy to address limitations associated with daily oral regimens in people living with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1), including adherence barriers, treatment fatigue, and social stigma. This systematic review, conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines and registered in International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO, CRD420251155009), identified randomized clinical trials comparing long-acting injectable cabotegravir and rilpivirine (CAB/RPV-LA) with standard daily oral ART through searches of PubMed, ScienceDirect, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. Ten randomized trials involving 5,619 adults with HIV-1 were included. CAB/RPV-LA, administered intramuscularly every four or eight weeks, achieved durable virological suppression exceeding 90% across follow-up periods of 48 to 240 weeks, demonstrating non-inferiority to daily oral ART. Patient-reported outcomes consistently favored the injectable regimen, with higher treatment satisfaction scores and excellent adherence within the dosing window, while adverse events were mainly mild-to-moderate injection-site reactions (ISRs), resulting in treatment discontinuation in fewer than 1% of participants. Overall, the certainty of evidence was high for virological efficacy and moderate for safety and satisfaction outcomes, supporting long-acting…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 5,619 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free