Skip to main content

Abstract

Aim: To quantify the market opportunity and economic impact of broadly neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (bnAbs) as a novel HIV prevention modality in high-income countries. Materials & methods: Using a decision-tree and revenue model applied to an eligible US population of 1299,708 individuals and projecting to 2040, bnAbs are estimated to capture 1 in 8 PrEP users (12.5% of PrEP users, 95% credible interval 7.3% to 21.1%, equivalent to 8.0% of the prevention-eligible population) following assumed US FDA approval in 2030. All estimates are scenario based and conditional on assumed pricing, uptake and behavior; none are observed outcomes. Critically, roughly half of projected bnAb users, nearly 52,000 individuals, would not otherwise use any biomedical HIV prevention, representing a net expansion of PrEP users (95% credible interval: 21,859–95,581). US manufacturer revenue totaled $12.0 billion discounted at 3% per year to 2030 (95% credible interval $6.2 billion to $21.9 billion), equivalent to $14.5 billion undiscounted, over the 11 years from approval to 2040. Total US payer spending rose 3.6% ($463.6 million annually), though the credible interval crosses zero, and the mean cost per prevention user decreased provided bnAbs are priced at the modeled list price of $14,000 per year, below existing injectable PrEP options. Conclusion: Under the assumptions modeled here, bnAbs could reach roughly one in eight PrEP users in high-income countries, about half of them people not otherwise using biomedical prevention. Whether this translates into an attractive commercial opportunity, and whether per-user prevention costs fall or rise, depends principally on how bnAbs are priced relative to long-acting injectable PrEP. These are projections conditional on assumed efficacy, pricing and adoption behavior, not observed outcomes.

Plain language summary: What would happen if antibody infusions became a new way to prevent HIV in wealthier countries?

What is this article about?

HIV can be prevented with medicines called PrEP, taken either as a daily pill or as an injection every one to 6 months. These work well, but many people do not use them: a daily pill is hard for some to keep up, and others do not want to take HIV medicines at all. Researchers are testing a different option: antibodies, proteins the immune system makes to fight infection, given as an infusion twice a year. This article asks what would happen to HIV prevention in wealthier countries if antibodies were approved in 2030.

What methodology is described?

We built a computer simulation model. It begins with the 1.3 million people in the USA who could benefit from HIV prevention and follows the choices they might make among the available options. We projected how many would use each option each year through 2040, what that would cost health insurers, and what a company making the antibodies could earn. Because almost every number in such a model is uncertain, we ran it 10,000-times with different plausible assumptions and report a range rather than a single figure.

What were the results?

About one in eight people using HIV prevention would choose antibodies. Roughly half of them would be people not using any HIV prevention today, so antibodies would reach people the current options are missing. Total spending by health insurers would rise by about 3.6%. Whether the average cost of protecting one person rises or falls depends almost entirely on how antibodies are priced against the injections already available.

Why is this important?

Antibodies for HIV prevention are still in clinical trials, and no one yet knows how well they work or what they will cost. This article does not claim they are good value for money, because that cannot yet be known. It sets out the conditions that would have to hold for antibodies to be worth developing and paying for, so funders, companies and health systems can see what is at stake before those decisions are made.

Supplementary Material

File (supplementary data.docx)

References

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest
2.
UNAIDS. AIDS, crisis and the power to transform: UNAIDS Global AIDS Update 2025. Geneva, Switzerland (2025). https://www.unaids.org/en/UNAIDS-global-AIDS-update-2025
3.
Beyrer C, Ratevosian J, Gelderblom H, Rosenberg NE. The HIV/AIDS pandemic: where are we now? AIDS 39(11), 1497–1504 (2025).
5.
Zhang J, Li C, Xu J et al. Discontinuation, suboptimal adherence, and reinitiation of oral HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis: a global systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet HIV 9(4), e254–e268 (2022).
• Quantifies the oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) persistence problem that motivates demand for long-acting non-antiretroviral options and informs the doses-per-client-year assumption in the manufacturer model.
6.
Delany-Moretlwe S, Hughes JP, Bock P et al. Cabotegravir for the prevention of HIV-1 in women: results from HPTN 084, a phase 3, randomised clinical trial. Lancet 399(10337), 1779–1789 (2022).
7.
Kelley CF, Acevedo-Quinones M, Agwu AL et al. Twice-yearly lenacapavir for HIV prevention in men and gender-diverse persons. N. Engl. J. Med. 392(13), 1261–1276 (2025).
• Establishes the efficacy and dosing interval of the twice-yearly injectable comparator whose price is the single most important determinant of the bnAb results reported here.
8.
Bekker LG, Das M, Abdool Karim Q et al. Twice-yearly lenacapavir or daily F/TAF for HIV prevention in cisgender women. N. Engl. J. Med. 391(13), 1179–1192 (2024).
9.
Gelderblom HC, Corey L, Barouch DH. The potential of broadly neutralizing antibodies for HIV prevention. J. Int. AIDS Soc. 27(5), e26257 (2024).
•• The most complete current synthesis of the clinical and programmatic case for bnAb-based prevention, and the basis for the product profile assumed in this model.
10.
Corey L, Gilbert PB, Juraska M et al. Two randomized trials of neutralizing antibodies to prevent HIV-1 acquisition. N. Engl. J. Med. 384(11), 1003–1014 (2021).
•• The Antibody Mediated Prevention trials established proof of concept for passive immunization against HIV and define the efficacy question that must be resolved before a formal cost-effectiveness analysis is possible.
11.
Cambiano V, Miners A, Dunn D et al. Cost-effectiveness of pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention in men who have sex with men in the UK: a modelling study and health economic evaluation. Lancet Infect. Dis. 18(1), 85–94 (2018).
•• The reference cost-effectiveness analysis for oral PrEP scale-up in a high-income setting, and the closest methodological comparator to the present analysis, which differs in taking a market rather than a payer-decision perspective.
12.
Phillips AN, Bansi-Matharu L, Shahmanesh M et al. Potential cost-effectiveness of community availability of tenofovir, lamivudine, and dolutegravir for HIV prevention and treatment in east, central, southern, and west Africa: a modelling analysis. Lancet Glob. Health 11(10), e1648–e1657 (2023).
13.
Smith DK, Van Handel M, Grey J. Estimates of adults with indications for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis by jurisdiction, transmission risk group, and race/ethnicity, United States, 2015. Ann. Epidemiol. 28(12), 850–857; e9 (2018).
14.
CDC. Monitoring selected national HIV prevention and care objectives by using HIV surveillance data — United States and 6 dependent areas, 2022. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, GA, USA (2024).
15.
Sullivan PS, DuBose SN, Castel AD et al. Equity of PrEP uptake by race, ethnicity, sex and region in the United States in the first decade of PrEP: a population-based analysis. Lancet Reg. Health Am. 33, 100738 (2024).