Drug Delivery and Translational Research

, Volume 7, Issue 6, pp 805–816 | Cite as

Long acting systemic HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis: an examination of the field

  • William R. Lykins
  • Ellen Luecke
  • Daniel Johengen
  • Ariane van der Straten
  • Tejal A. Desai
Review Article


Oral pre-exposure prophylaxis for the prevention of HIV-1 transmission (HIV PrEP) has been widely successful as demonstrated by a number of clinical trials. However, studies have also demonstrated the need for patients to tightly adhere to oral dosing regimens in order to maintain protective plasma and tissue concentrations. This is especially true for women, who experience less forgiveness from dose skipping than men in clinical trials of HIV PrEP. There is increasing interest in long-acting (LA), user-independent forms of HIV PrEP that could overcome this adherence challenge. These technologies have taken multiple forms including LA injectables and implantables. Phase III efficacy trials are ongoing for a LA injectable candidate for HIV PrEP. This review will focus on the design considerations for both LA injectable and implantable platforms for HIV PrEP. Additionally, we have summarized the existing LA technologies currently in clinical and pre-clinical studies for HIV PrEP as well as other technologies that have been applied to HIV PrEP and contraceptives. Our discussion will focus on the potential application of these technologies in low resource areas, and their use in global women’s health.


HIV prevention Pre-exposure prophylaxis Antiretroviral Chemo prophylaxis Long acting 


Despite international success in the prevention and treatment of HIV-1, infection rates have stagnated throughout the twenty-first century [1]. Over the past 10 years, oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has been found to successfully reduce the sexual and parenteral transmission of HIV [2, 3, 4, 5]. Currently, there is only one approved HIV PrEP product, consisting of a fixed dose combination of two nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs), tenofovir-disoproxil fumarate 200 mg (TDF) and emtricitabine 300 mg (FTC), sold under the brand name Truvada® by Gilead Sciences as a once daily oral pill. When taken daily, Truvada® is highly effective at preventing the sexual transmission of HIV by more than 75% with regular use [2, 4] and upwards of 92% with perfect adherence [6]. This highlights the major drawback of currently available HIV PrEP: the need for daily adherence to an oral pill regimen. Furthermore, oral PrEP has lower forgiveness for prevention of vaginal transmission, which requires use of at least 85% of expected doses (6 of 7 weekly doses) to maintain protective active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) concentrations in the lower female reproductive track. Whereas protective API concentrations in rectal tissues can be maintained with as little as 28% of expected doses (2 of 7 weekly doses) [7, 8]. Notably, two clinical trials of orally dosed HIV PrEP among female study populations that had very low estimated product use (less than 40% of participants) were unable to demonstrate effectiveness [5, 9]. To overcome this adherence challenge, there has been extensive research and development invested in the optimization of long-acting (LA), user-independent HIV PrEP formulations [10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18]. Feedback from end-users suggests that LA dosage forms are not only acceptable but also preferred over more frequent dosing regimens [19, 20, 21]. Healthcare providers also appear to have a preference for LA approaches (Lutnick et al., 2017, unpublished data).

In this review, we summarize LA HIV PrEP delivery systems (defined by a dosing interval of at least 30 days) that are systemic (excluding transient topical and local delivery technologies). We will also address technologies that have not been directly applied to HIV PrEP, but offer promising contributions to the future delivery pipeline. Our discussion will focus on the use of these technologies in vulnerable populations, low resource settings, and their application to global women’s health.

Injectables for LA HIV PrEP

The field of LA systemic HIV PrEP has been dominated by LA injectable formulations of highly potent antiretrovirals (ARVs) [10, 16, 22, 23]. To date, a number of phase I and II clinical trials have been carried out with a range of ARVs, with a phase IIb/III efficacy trial ongoing now for LA cabotegravir (hptn.org/research/studies/176, HPTN 083).

LA injectables span a wide range of formulations and processing strategies [24, 25]. In this review, we will primarily focus on wet nanomilling approaches that have been applied to the development of LA ARV depot injectables. Nanomilling describes the process of applying physical agitation and stresses to reduce the size of poorly soluble solid drug crystals as a means to improve their pharmacokinetic (PK) properties, aqueous solubility, and bioavailability [26, 27, 28, 29]. Nanomilling—generating particles on the order of 200 nm in diameter [24]—uses coated metal ball bearings (often zirconium) to mechanically grind drug suspensions that include a stabilizing polymer or surfactant coating [30, 31]. The coating enables colloidal stability of the particles and prevents agglomeration of the nanosuspension by blocking hydrophobic collapse. This is accomplished either via steric hindrance or ionic repulsion. Common stabilizers include polyethylene glycol, cyclodextrin, and other polymers or surfactants [24, 25]. Nanomilling dramatically increases the surface area of a drug suspension. Increased surface area has a positive impact on dissolution by increasing the solvent-accessible drug [32]. This increases the possible peak plasma concentration (Cmax), compared to more traditional injectable solutions [33, 34]. Because absorbance and dissolution time is delayed in the case of an intra-muscular (IM) nanosuspension injection, there is also an improved safety profile and a decrease in injection site reactions [35, 36]. It is important to note, however, that because the distribution of nanosuspensions is dissolution-limited, concentration-dependent kinetics of low solubility agents can be accompanied by long, sub-therapeutic PK tails [10, 25].

In the design and selection of an agent for a LA injectable formulation, it is necessary to understand the potency (IC50), hydrophobicity (LogP and aqueous solubility), and pharmacokinetic parameters (clearance, distribution kinetics, etc.) of the API of interest [37]. There is a wide range of APIs available for the treatment and prevention of HIV that span orders of magnitude in potency and solubility. However, APIs with low solubility and high potency are preferred to best extend the release of the API from a nanosuspension and to decrease the total dose of API needed for effective protection. For this reason, the development of LA injectables has primarily focused on two agents: the non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) rilpivirine (RPV) and the integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI) cabotegravir (CAB). Both APIs exhibit sub-nanomolar potency in vitro and are minimally soluble in biological fluids at physiological pH (RPV: solubility 0.094 μg/mL LogP = 4.32, CAB: solubility <0.09 mg/mL, LogP = 2.20, 37), making them ideal candidates for LA injectable delivery applications (Table 1) [10, 38, 44]. Alternative APIs such as the INSTI raltegravir and the NNRTI nevirapine have been studied as LA injectables, but due to limited potency and residence time, neither API is currently being pursued in human clinical trials [23, 45] (clinicaltrials.gov 2016).
Table 1

Injectable LA PrEP technologies in development


Study phase


PA-IC90 (nM)


Injection concentration

Number and volume of injections

Dose schedule


Rilpivirine (RPV)

2b (combination with LA CAB)



200-nm particle formulated with poloxamer 338 as a stabilizer

300 mg/mL

2 × 2 mL IM injections


[37, 38, 39, 40]

Cabotegravir (CAB)




200-nm particle with stabilizing surfactants and tonicity agents

200 mg/mL

2 × 2 mL IM injections


[37, 41, 42, 43]

CAB is related to the INSTI dolutegravir but has been modified to increase serum protein binding, while reducing solubility and clearance, affording CAB an extended in vivo half-life compared to dolutegravir [41]. CAB exhibits sub-nanomolar potency against various lab strains of HIV-1 (IC50 0.22 to 0.34 nM) and binds tightly to serum albumin leading to a target IC90 (PA-IC90) of 166 ng/mL [16]. This high potency combined with low aqueous solubility (0.015 mg/mL) and low clearance (0.32 mL/min/kg) has identified CAB as a target for LA PrEP applications [16, 46]. This extended half-life has made it possible to formulate a once per 8-week intramuscular (IM) injection of 800 mg in 4 mL of CAB delivered bilaterally in the gluteus with two 2-mL injections [16]. Bilateral dosing was shown to increase dissolution rate and Cmax after dosing [16]. LA CAB is observed to persist for an extended period of time in serum, with a half-life of 25–54 days after an IM depot injection [42]. Repeat dosing studies have also shown that CAB accumulates in plasma during monthly dosing, suggesting that bi-monthly dosing regimen would be the most effective at maintaining non-toxic serum concentrations [22]. CAB is currently being explored as a monotherapy for HIV prevention, and in combination with RPV for chronic HIV treatment [22, 43].

RPV is a potent API, with an unbound IC50 of 0.26 nM in culture, leading to a serum PA-IC90 of 12 ng/mL [38, 39]. It is known to be potent against a range of HIV-1 isolates and has been found to be generally tolerable to patients during repeat dosing [47, 48]. The nanosuspension was formulated with a Poloxamer 338 (Pluronics F108) stabilizing surfactant and ground using 500-μm zirconium beads in a continuous wet milling process to a particle size on the order of 200 nm, then formulated in water along with tonicity agents at a concentration of 600 mg/mL [39, 49, 50]. LA RPV has been dosed either at 600 mg as a single IM injection, or at 1200 mg in two bilateral injections in the gluteus [50]. Phase Ia human studies of LA RPV have found that RPV poorly distributes to vaginal and cervical tissues as measured by poor correlation between blood plasma concentrations and tissue drug concentrations [40]. Additionally, RPV only modesty distributes to rectal tissue at high IM dosages (1200 mg) [40]. Measurements of viral inhibition using homogenized vaginal and cervical tissue explants show little to no efficacy 40 days after a single 600- or 1200-mg dose, with mild suppression in rectal tissue [40]. However, dose proportionality studies using beagle dog models of PK distribution suggest that RPV accumulates in lymphoid tissues, potentially due to macrophage engulfment [39]. These findings suggest that RPV may be limited in its utility as a PrEP agent because of its limited presence in virus-exposed tissues. However, LA RPV is potentially promising as a LA treatment option because of its accumulation in lymphatic tissues which are thought to be viral reservoirs.

In the case of an adverse reaction to an LA injectable API, removal, or dialysis, the API from whole blood is not possible, necessitating a 14-day lead in oral dose to asses individual safety for LA CAB and RPV [17, 22, 40]. Additionally, both LA formulations take on the order of a week to achieve therapeutic plasma concentrations. Therefore, oral lead in dosing might be required to cover this sub-therapeutic window. Clinical research with LA CAB has also required a lead out oral Truvada® regimen to cover the sub-therapeutic PK tail of CAB for up to a year after the end of the LA regimen to reduce the risk of break through resistance in volunteers [17]. These additional oral dosing requirements increase the complexity of the dosing regimen and could interfere with appropriate compliance. Most study participants (70%–100%) experienced some form of injection site discomfort or pain. Severe discomfort, which may disincentivize users, was rare [22].

In addition to small molecule therapeutics, there has been increasing interest in the use of broadly neutralizing anti-HIV antibodies (e.g., VRC01) as a prophylactic [51, 52, 53, 54, 55]. Antibodies have the advantage of being both highly potent and naturally long lasting with serum half-lives on the order of a month. In studies using non-human primates, a single infusion of VRC01 was protective against high dose rectal challenge for up to 2 weeks [51, 52]. In vitro studies of tissue explants have suggested that various antibodies might be effective at preventing mucosal transmission of HIV [56]. Current ongoing studies such as the AMP trials (HPTN 085 and HVTN 704) will provide more information on the clinical effectiveness of antibody-based prophylaxis (clinicaltrials.gov #NCT02716675). There are also ongoing antibody engineering studies focused on extending the half-lives of broadly neutralizing antibodies. By modifying the Ig constant region, researchers increased binding affinity to FcRn receptors by an order of magnitude and were able to extend the serum half-lives of IgGs by 4-fold out to 3 months without a detectable decrease in antigen-binding potency [57, 58]. This extended half-life in combination with efforts to formulate high concentration (100 mg/mL) antibody reagents makes antibody-based PrEP injections a potentially feasible approach [59].

Implantable delivery technologies for LA HIV PrEP

The range of implantable drug delivery technologies, targeting a variety of indications, is vast and has been reviewed extensively elsewhere [60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66]. Compared to LA injectables, LA ARV releasing implants have four main advantages: the capacity to (1) enable release profiles that can exceed 12 months in duration [67, 68, 69]; (2) enable extended zero-order release, and “flat” serum-drug concentration profiles with limited sub-therapeutic tailing; (3) be fully removed and “reverse” treatment; and (4) deliver highly soluble ARV agents [64, 70, 71]. Similar to LA injectables, LA implantable systems benefit from highly potent APIs, as well as APIs that accumulate in tissues of interest. This allows for low API mass payloads to effectively cover the intended device life span, which is critical for devices with constrained geometries [60]. Additionally, it is important to consider the solubility, formulation, and shelf stability of APIs for implantable systems [72, 73]. Implantable drug depots, like the etonogestrel Nexplanon® rod, that utilize outpatient implantation procedures necessitate local anesthetic as well as wound closing measures [74, 75]. Feedback from regulatory agencies has suggested that devices should maintain protective release profiles for more than 6 months per procedure [17]. In the context of implantable devices for LA PrEP and broadly in the field of controlled release implants, it is necessary to consider the implications of the foreign body response and fibrotic encapsulation, which has recently been reviewed extensively and will not be addressed in depth here [76, 77, 78].

Most LA drug-releasing implants are based on drug embedded in a polymer matrix or drug surrounded by a diffusion-limiting membrane. While several commercial products are based on matrix-type systems, most notably contraceptive implants [69, 79, 80], this review will focus on the use of reservoir-type devices. Such reservoir devices are capable of zero-order drug release which enables constant mass flux and stable serum drug concentration [62, 71]. In a drug reservoir system, biological fluid permeates a membrane and enters a drug-containing core. Solid drug is then dissolved in the fluid (dependent on the solubility of the drug) creating a constantly saturated solution, enabling a constant concentration gradient in sink conditions (Fig. 1) [71, 81]. Based on the principles of Fickian diffusion of mass through a rate-controlling membrane, mass flux depends on two key parameters: (1) the interaction of the API with the membrane that determines its ability to permeate and diffuse through the membrane, and (2) the geometry (e.g., surface area), density, and thickness (diffusive length scale) of the material comprising the membrane [82]. An alternative method to achieve zero-order release is a single file diffusion regime, where the membrane pore size is on the same order as the hydrodynamic diameter of the therapeutic, preventing multiple molecules from exiting simultaneously from the same pore [83]. These devices are able to achieve zero-order release of biological macromolecules, such as proteins and hormones and are desirable for a number of different indications [84, 85].
Fig. 1

Diagram of reservoir-based controlled release device

Devices for the controlled release of HIV PrEP agents (Table 2) have focused on the release of tenofovir alafenamide fumarate (TAF), a more potent produg of tenofovir [88]. Compared to TDF, TAF is an order magnitude more potent based on serum concentration (IC50 TAF = 5 nM, TDF = 50 nM) [88]. Both TAF and TDF have the same active pharmaceutical form, tenofovir di-phosphate (TFV-DP), and mechanism of viral inhibition, premature termination of viral genome elongation [88]. However, TAF is unique in that it is only converted to TFV-DP in the presence of an intracellular cathepsin A enzyme, creating a driving force for cellular accumulation and persistence of TAF in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs), CD4+ T-cells among other cell types [89]. TAF is also serum stable, extending its serum half-life around 200-fold beyond TDF (90 min for TAF, 0.41 min for TDF) [88, 90]. The nanomolar potency and extended serum half-life of TAF make it an attractive candidate for LA delivery. Because of its relative hydrophilicity (solubility 4.86 mg/mL, LogP 1.6), tenofovir and its prodrugs are not good candidates for LA injections [37]. Investigators are also pursuing alternative APIs for long- or short-acting delivery such as the potent NRTI EFdA, which has also shown increased potency against common tenofovir resistance mutations [91, 92].
Table 2

Implantable LA PrEP technologies in development


Device type

Study phase

Primary materials


Device dimensions

In vivo release rate (mg/day)

Device lifetime (days)


Oak crest

Reservoir, non-degradable


Silicone and PVA


40 mm × 1.9 mm





Reservoir, bioresorbable



2:1 TAF:PEG 300

40 mm × 2.5 mm




While there are numerous polymer systems for rate-limiting membranes and matrix-type devices [65], a smaller subset has been used in the context of HIV PrEP. It is necessary to consider the polymer along with the API, as their interaction will ultimately govern the diffusion through and partitioning of drug into the membrane [65]. Hydrophilic drugs tend to pass quickly through hydrophobic layers without partitioning into the polymer matrix in order to reduce energetically unfavorable interactions, whereas interactions between the API and the membrane will slow release [93]. Of the more conventional membrane materials, there are polyesters such as polycaprolactone (PCL) [81], polyurethanes (PURs) [94], polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) [95, 96], poly(ethylene-co-vinyl acetate) (EVAc) [97], and silicone [98, 99]. Specifically, researchers have looked at PVA and PCL in the context of HIV PrEP.

PVA is a non-degradable hydrophilic polymer that can be formed into membranes by heat annealing the polymer into a solid form that possess increased crystallinity and remains intact under aqueous conditions [95, 100, 101]. PCL is a relatively hydrophobic “soft” polyester that is bioresorbable via hydrolysis [81, 102, 103]. The degradation properties of PCL are tunable depending on the starting molecular weight of polymers used, on a scale of months to years, from implantation to total dissolution [102, 104]. PCL has notably been used in the development of implantable contraceptive technologies [87, 105].

Oak Crest Laboratories are developing a silicone-PVA implantable system. Their devices are fabricated from a piece of silicone tubing that has 1-mm holes punched in its axis, which are then coated with a heat-annealed PVA membrane and loaded with the free base of tenofovir alafenamide (GS-7340, purified free base) (Fig. 2) [86]. The device is 40 mm by 1.9 mm with a wall thickness of 0.4 mm [86]. The release kinetics of the device is based on the number and size of the PVA membranes included in the device, which can be tuned to achieve the desired release properties. The device demonstrated an in vitro release rate of 0.92 mg TAF per day, and an in vivo release rate of 1.07 mg TAF per day. In vivo studies in a dog model of TAF PK demonstrated that constant serum concentrations of TAF and intracellular concentrations of tenofovir-diphosphate were maintained above therapeutic levels for up to 40 days [86]. This device is non-degradable, and similarly to contraceptive implants, would need to be removed at the end of its lifetime.
Fig. 2

Oak Crest device. a Device schematic and picture. b In vivo measurements of TFV (open circles), TAF (closed circles), and intracellular TFV-DP (diamonds). Each data point represents the mean ± SD, and dashed lines represent the median value for each analyte over the 40-day study. From Gunawardana et al. [86], used with author permission

The “thin-film polymer device” (TFPD) is a reservoir device developed by the laboratory of professor Tejal Desai (UCSF) jointly with RTI International laboratories, consists of a thin 80-kDa PCL membrane surrounding a core of TAF-PEG 300 in a 2:1 ratio by mass using the acid salt form of TAF, tenofovir alafenamide hemifumarate (GS-7034-03, 2:1 free base to fumarate) (Fig. 3) [106]. PEG-300 acts as a solubilizing excipient for TAF and helped to establish a membrane-controlled, rather than dissolution-controlled, release regime when using a 25-μm-thick membrane [106]. The TFPD is rod shaped, 40 mm × 2.5 mm, with heat-sealed seams. This device can be loaded with upwards of 150 mg of TAF and has a release rate of 1.4 mg/day, which is thought to be physiologically relevant for protection, giving an estimated device lifetime of 3 months [106]. Because the TFPD is made of bioresorbable PCL, the device does not need to be surgically excised and instead will degrade after the drug payload has been exhausted. Additionally, the TFPD was able to maintain the stability of TAF in vitro for upwards of 100 days, as verified by HPLC, with only minor evidence of degradation [106]. This is especially significant in the delivery of a relatively unstable API like TAF, where in vivo stability might be non-trivial [107, 108]. Small animal preclinical studies with the TFPD are ongoing, but preliminary rat studies have demonstrated the ability of the TFPD to function in an animal model for more than 2 weeks. Additionally, studies on the effects of gamma sterilization have shown negligible effects on drug purity or polymer degradation. Ongoing studies have demonstrated that the device can be removed up to 1 month postimplantation, which is critical for future safety evaluations (Swarner 2016 CROI poster, Schlesinger 2016 CROI Poster, Swarner 2016 HIV R4P Poster).
Fig. 3

TFPD device. a Device pictures and fabrication scale. b In vivo daily release for high dose (TAF-H) device over 14 days, with pictures of device pre- and postimplantation. c In vitro release kinetics for high and medium dose (TAF-M) TAF devices; each point represents mean ± SD. From Schlesinger et al. [106], used with author permission

It is also important to consider other polymers and LA device systems for applications in HIV PrEP. PURs have tunable hydrophilicity and degradation properties and have been applied extensively in the area of membrane-based implantable drug delivery devices [94, 109, 110]. Notably, PURs have been used in the development of reservoir devices for the long-term delivery of the peptide steroid agonist histrelin in the treatment of advanced prostate cancer (Vantas) and central precocious puberty (Supprelin LA) [67, 111, 112, 113]. Non-degradable polymers such as ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVAcs) have been applied extensively in the most modern iteration of implantable contraceptive devices including the Nexplanon® system. EVAc has many desirable qualities as a controlled release medium but can be difficult to source at a medical grade [69, 97, 114].

There is also interest in long-term, refillable silicon nanochannel devices [85, 115, 116]. These devices are constructed from rationally designed silicone nanoslits, with a width corresponding to the hydrodynamic diameter of the intended deliverable, which can be tuned to enable single file diffusion through the slits. By altering the channel lengths and channel density, it is possible to tune the release of APIs from these devices [85]. These devices have seen extensive studies in animal models and have been shown to rapidly establish zero-order release regimes that persist for upwards of 70 days with multiple APIs [85]. Investigators are also exploring methods to make the devices refillable, potentially enabling life-long PrEP administration from a single implant.

Intarcia Therapeutics, in conjunction with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, is developing an osmotic pump-based implant for long-term HIV PrEP delivery. Recently, their DUROS® device has completed a phase III clinical trial for the delivery of exenatide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes as a 9-month subcutaneous implant [117]. The DUROS® device can achieve zero-order release of a range of APIs and can be designed to last for 6–12 months [118].

CONRAD, in collaboration with Dr. Patrick Kiser (Northwestern University), is developing a combination contraceptive-PrEP intrauterine system (IUS) for sustained (1+ year) use. A first-generation product in preclinical stages of development combines the INSTI elvitegravir (EVG) with copper as a non-hormonal contraceptive. The design of the device builds on that of existing T-shaped contraceptive IUS (e.g., Mirena, Paraguard). To date, this EVG-eluting IUS has demonstrated preclinical proof of concept that an ARV administered via the intrauterine route can be distributed throughout the female reproductive tract in animal models at levels expected to be prophylactic (Clark et al. 2016 [119], poster P07.40, HIV R4P, Chicago, IL). Simian immune deficiency virus (SIV) challenge studies in the pig tailed macaque are planned to initiate in early 2017.

Acceptability, end-users, and cost considerations

HIV prevention products require users’ active engagement in preventive health behaviors. Hence, product acceptability is necessary for correct and consistent use of prevention technologies. The Scientific Agenda Working Group of the Initiative for Multipurpose Prevention Technologies conducted a pipeline evaluation exercise, which led to the recommendation of developing a suite of product types to accommodate the diverse needs and preference of women, including sustained release topical devices such as vaginal rings, systemic long-acting injectable products, and on-demand formulations [120].

Overall, attitudes toward hypothetical LA injectable PrEP products are favorable in diverse populations and across geographical locations, including among men who have sex with men (MSM), injection drug users, sex workers, serodiscordant couples, young and adult women ([21, 121, 122] Quaife et al., 2016, HIV R4P, Chicago, IL). In two exploratory studies, when presented with a variety of possible PrEP formulations, a majority of African women participating in prevention trials expressed interest in methods such as injectables, implants, and rings ([20], van der Straten AIDS conference poster 2016 abstract 1742). The main positive attributes of these methods included being long-acting, discreet, and easy-to-use. A study conducted by Ipsos Healthcare assessing the potential for MPTs in Uganda, South Africa, and Nigeria also found that injectables and implants had high resonance with women [121]. In end-user feedback surveys, both men and women have shown a willingness to undergo mild to moderate discomfort to achieve LA prevention of unintended pregnancy or HIV given long dosing intervals [19, 123].

Beyond hypothetical preference, researchers have examined users’ sensory perceptions and actual experiences to inform product development and improve usability and desirability of new technologies delivering ARVs [124, 125]. In South Africa and Kenya, over 60% of women who ranked three placebo delivery forms (oral tablets, vaginal rings, or IM injections), most preferred the injections, both before and after using all three placebo products. A majority of participants also selected the injections for a continued use period (van der Straten CROI meting poster 2017 abstract 936). Furthermore, men participating in the Phase II ÉCLAIR study of LA cabotegravir as PrEP found it to be an appealing alternative to oral PrEP (Kerrigan et al. AIDS 2016 poster, Durban South Africa) with 87% of participants willing to recommend the LA injection and 79% reporting a willingness to continue with study medication (Murray et al. Abstract 471 CROI 2017, Seattle WA; Bekker et al. Abstract 421LB CROI 2017, Seattle WA).

Despite these reported preferences and positive attitudes, LA PrEP formulations will not solve all end-user challenges. In the contraception literature, high rate of non-persistence are reported after initial injectable contraception use [126, 127]. Despite the growing popularity of contraceptive implants, due to high effectiveness and longer duration, insertion and removal procedures require a clinic setting and specially trained staff [128, 129]. Cost is thus an important consideration, particularly in the context of HIV PrEP. When applying a cost-effectiveness model of preventing AIDS in South Africa, monthly costs of LA-PrEP and laboratory visits were cost saving when compared to no PrEP, but more costly than oral [130]. The implementation of LA PrEP may require more frequent access to a clinic, rather than a pharmacy, which may be unattractive to some potential end-users. Multiple groups have estimated that in sub-Saharan Africa, the annual cost for a single annual regimen of Truvada® is on the order of $100 USD, and on the order of $400–$600 USD when the cost of clinical visits are included [131, 132, 133]. This comes out to a cost of about $0.27 USD per day to cover the cost of pharmaceuticals. For LA PrEP systems to be competitive and usable in this space, they must have a similar cost of goods profile. It is conceivable that LA PrEP formulations will have a greater material cost than oral PrEP, but will reduce costs long term due to reduced dosing frequency and improved patient adherence to treatment leading to a reduction in seroconversions, as well as a reduction in API related toxicity [72, 134, 135]. Studies have looked specifically at the costs associated with implementing LA PrEP on a country-wide basis in South Africa. Researchers found, through a comprehensive modeling approach, that oral PrEP and LA PrEP are both cost saving in the long term compared to no PrEP. When estimating the efficacy of LA PrEP at 75%, researchers showed comparable per-person lifetime costs to oral PrEP ($5300 and $5270 in 2014 USD, respectively) [130]. The authors and others note that when expanding this analysis to women over the age of 25, and when incorporating vertical transmission to infants, the cost per prevented infection increasingly favors LA PrEP over oral PrEP [130, 136].

Summary and future prospects

LA HIV PrEP should ultimately simplify HIV prevention methods, and thereby increase user adherence (specifically, quality of execution and persistence) [137, 138]. There is substantial precedent in the contraceptive space for the movement toward LA HIV prevention strategies, including 2–3-month LA injectables like Depo-Provera and Net-En, and 3–5-year LA implantables such as the Nexplanon® rod or the Jadelle 2-rod system. These products have dramatically expanded access to contraceptives for women globally by improving ease of use and coverage [139]. Current products in clinical trials for LA HIV PrEP (e.g., LA CAB) promise a reduced dose burden, from daily oral pills to bi-monthly injections, which would dramatically reduce potential user treatment error [22]. However, the need for lead in and lead out dosing concurrent with current injectable formulations might make them cumbersome in practice. Implantable products, currently in preclinical trials, could further reduce this dosing interval to once every 6 months or longer. There are important regulatory challenges associated with developing a LA injectable or prophylactic implant that, while not covered in depth here, must also be considered carefully in the future development of these systems [140, 141].

There are still substantial challenges to be overcome for LA HIV PrEP, including demonstrating efficacy in human trials. However, in order to increase the prevention options available to vulnerable populations, embracing LA systematic HIV PrEP technologies is necessary, and a clinical breakthrough is likely in the near future.



The authors would like to acknowledge Zach Demkovich for his help with literature reviews, and reviews of the draft manuscript. We would also like to acknowledge Meredith Clark, Gustavo Doncel, and Marc Baum for the use of figures and information. This research is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. The contents are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID, PEPFAR, or the US Government. The TFPD program is also sponsored by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. WL is funded by the NSF GRFP.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    UNAIDS, AIDS By the Numbers, Geneva, Switzerland, 2016.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baeten JM, Donnell D, Ndase P, Mugo NR, Campbell JD, Wangisi J, et al. Antiretroviral prophylaxis for HIV prevention in heterosexual men and women. N Engl J Med 2012;367(5):399–410. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1108524.
  3. 3.
    Thigpen MC, Kebaabetswe PM, Paxton LA, Smith DK, Rose CE, Segolodi TM, et al. Antiretroviral Preexposure prophylaxis for heterosexual HIV transmission in Botswana. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:423–34. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1110711.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Choopanya K, Martin M, Suntharasamai P, Sangkum U, Mock PA, Leethochawalit M, et al. Antiretroviral prophylaxis for HIV infection in injecting drug users in Bangkok, Thailand (the Bangkok Tenofovir study): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2013;381:2083–90. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61127-7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Marrazzo JM, Ramjee G, Richardson BA, Gomez K, Mgodi N, Nair G, et al. Tenofovir-based Preexposure prophylaxis for HIV infection among African women. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:509–18. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1402269.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Grant RM, Lama JR, Anderson PL, McMahan V, Liu AY, Vargas L, et al. Preexposure chemoprophylaxis for HIV prevention in men who have sex with men. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:2587–99. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1011205.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cottrell ML, Yang KH, Prince HMA, Sykes C, White N, Malone S, et al. A translational pharmacology approach to predicting outcomes of Preexposure prophylaxis against HIV in men and women using Tenofovir Disoproxil fumarate with or without Emtricitabine. J Infect Dis. 2016;214:55–64. doi:10.1093/infdis/jiw077.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dezzutti CS, Hendrix CW, Marrazzo JM, Pan Z, Wang L, Louissaint N, et al. Performance of swabs, lavage, and diluents to quantify biomarkers of female genital tract soluble mucosal mediators. PLoS One. 2011;6 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0023136.
  9. 9.
    Van Damme L, Corneli A, Ahmed K, Agot K, Lombaard J, Kapiga S, et al. Preexposure prophylaxis for HIV infection among African women. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:411–22. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1202614.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hickey MB, Merisko-Liversidge E, Remenar JF, Namchuk M. Delivery of long-acting injectable antivirals. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2015;28:1. doi:10.1097/QCO.0000000000000214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Owen A, Rannard S. Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and challenges for long acting injectable therapies: insights for applications in HIV therapy. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2016;103:144–56. doi:10.1016/j.addr.2016.02.003.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Boffito M, Jackson A, Owen A, Becker S. New approaches to antiretroviral drug delivery: challenges and opportunities associated with the use of long-acting injectable agents. Drugs. 2014;74:7–13. doi:10.1007/s40265-013-0163-7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Krakower DS, Mayer KH. Pre-exposure prophylaxis to prevent HIV infection: current status, future opportunities and challenges. Drugs. 2015;75:243–51. doi:10.1007/s40265-015-0355-4.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Myers JE, Ellman TM, Westhoff C. Injectable agents for pre-exposure prophylaxis: lessons learned from contraception to inform HIV prevention. Curr Opin HIV AIDS. 2015;10:271–7. doi:10.1097/COH.0000000000000166.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nelson AG, Zhang X, Ganapathi U, Szekely Z, Flexner CW, Owen A, et al. Drug delivery strategies and systems for HIV/AIDS pre-exposure prophylaxis and treatment. J Control Release. 2015;219:669–80. doi:10.1016/j.jconrel.2015.08.042.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Spreen WR, Margolis DA, Pottage JC. Long-acting injectable antiretrovirals for HIV treatment and prevention. Curr Opin HIV AIDS. 2013;8:565–71. doi:10.1097/COH.0000000000000002.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    McGowan I. Injectable and implantable antiretroviral strategies for HIV prevention. Future Virol. 2015;10:1163–76. doi:10.2217/fvl.15.83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nyaku AN, Kelly SG, Taiwo BO. Long-acting Antiretrovirals: where are we now? Curr HIV/AIDS Rep. 2017; doi:10.1007/s11904-017-0353-0.
  19. 19.
    Parsons JT, Rendina HJ, Whitfield THF, Grov C. Familiarity with and preferences for oral and long-acting injectable HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in a National Sample of gay and bisexual men in the U.S. AIDS Behav. 2016;20:1390–9. doi:10.1007/s10461-016-1370-5.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Luecke EH, Cheng H, Woeber K, Nakyanzi T, Mudekunye-Mahaka IC, van der Straten A. Stated product formulation preferences for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis among women in the VOICE-D (MTN-003D) study. J Int AIDS Soc. 2016;19:1–9. doi:10.7448/IAS.19.1.20875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Eisingerich AB, Wheelock A, Gomez GB, Garnett GP, Dybul MR, Piot PK. Attitudes and acceptance of oral and parenteral HIV preexposure prophylaxis among potential user groups: a multinational study. PLoS One. 2012;7(1):1–11. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0028238.
  22. 22.
    Spreen W, Williams P, Margolis D, Ford SL, Crauwels H, Lou Y, et al. Pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability with repeat doses of GSK1265744 and Rilpivirine (TMC278) long-acting Nanosuspensions in healthy adults. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2014;67:487–92. doi:10.1097/QAI.0000000000000365.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cortez JM, Quintero R, Moss JA, Beliveau M, Smith TJ, Baum MM. Pharmacokinetics of injectable, long-acting nevirapine for HIV prophylaxis in breastfeeding infants. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2015;59:59–66. doi:10.1128/AAC.03906-14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kalepu S, Nekkanti V. Improved delivery of poorly soluble compounds using nanoparticle technology : a review. Drug Deliv Transl Res. 2016:319–32. doi:10.1007/s13346-016-0283-1.
  25. 25.
    Rabinow BE. Nanosuspensions in drug delivery. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2004;3:785–96. doi:10.1038/nrd1494.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Na GC, Stevens HJ, Yuan BO, Rajagopalan N. Physical stability of ethyl diatrizoate nanocrystalline suspension in steam sterilization. Pharm Res. 1999;16:569–74. doi:10.1023/A:1018883431970.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yadollahi R, Vasilev K, Simovic S. Nanosuspension Technologies for Delivery of poorly soluble drugs. J Nanomater. 2015;2015:1–13. doi:10.1155/2015/216375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Merisko-Liversidge EM, Liversidge GG. Drug nanoparticles: formulating poorly water-soluble compounds. Toxicol Pathol. 2008;36:43–8. doi:10.1177/0192623307310946.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Merisko-Liversidge E, Liversidge GG, Cooper ER. Nanosizing: a formulation approach for poorly-water-soluble compounds. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2003;18:113–20. doi:10.1016/S0928-0987(02)00251-8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ziller K, Rupprecht H. Control of crystal-growth in drug suspensions .2. Influence of polymers on dissolution and crystallization during temperature cycling. Pharm Ind. 1990;52:1017–22.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Keck CM, Müller RH. Drug nanocrystals of poorly soluble drugs produced by high pressure homogenisation. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2006;62:3–16. doi:10.1016/j.ejpb.2005.05.009.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gao L, Zhang D, Chen M. Drug nanocrystals for the formulation of poorly soluble drugs and its application as a potential drug delivery system. J Nanopart Res. 2008;10:845–62. doi:10.1007/s11051-008-9357-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zuidema J, Pieters FAJM, Duchateau GSMJE. Release and absorption rate aspects of intramuscularly injected pharmaceuticals. Int J Pharm. 1988;47:1–12. doi:10.1016/0378-5173(88)90209-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Stout PJM, Khoury N, Howard SA, Mauger JW. Dissolution performance related to particle size distribution for cohpiercially available prednisolone acetate suspensions. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 1992;18(4):395–408. doi:10.3109/03639049209043860.
  35. 35.
    Theis JG, Liau-Chu M, Chan HS, Doyle J, Greenberg ML, Koren G. Anaphylactoid reactions in children receiving high-dose intravenous cyclosporine for reversal of tumor resistance: the causative role of improper dissolution of Cremophor EL. J Clin Oncol. 1995;13:2508–16. doi:10.1200/JCO.1995.13.10.2508.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Boedeker BH, Lojeski EW, Kline MD, Haynes DH. Ultra-long-duration local anesthesia produced by injection of lecithin-coated Tetracaine microcrystals. J Clin Pharmacol. 1994;34:699–702. doi:10.1002/j.1552-4604.1994.tb02026.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rajoli RKR, Back DJ, Rannard S, Freel Meyers CL, Flexner C, Owen A, et al. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic modelling to inform development of intramuscular long-acting Nanoformulations for HIV. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2015;54:639–50. doi:10.1007/s40262-014-0227-1.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Williams PE, Crauwels HM, Basstanie ED. Formulation and pharmacology of long-acting rilpivirine. Curr Opin HIV AIDS. 2015;10:233–8. doi:10.1097/COH.0000000000000164.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    van’t Klooster G, Hoeben E, Borghys H, Looszova A, Bouche MP, van Velsen F, et al. Pharmacokinetics and disposition of Rilpivirine (TMC278) Nanosuspension as a long-acting injectable antiretroviral formulation, Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2010;54:2042–50. doi:10.1128/AAC.01529-09.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    McGowan I, Dezzutti CS, Siegel A, Engstrom J, Nikiforov A, Duffill K, et al. Long-acting rilpivirine as potential pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV-1 prevention (the MWRI-01 study): an open-label, phase 1, compartmental, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic assessment. Lancet HIV. 2016;3018:1–10. doi:10.1016/S2352-3018(16)30113-8.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Spreen W, Min S, Ford SL, Chen S, Lou Y, Bomar M, et al. Pharmacokinetics, safety, and monotherapy antiviral activity of GSK1265744, an HIV integrase strand transfer inhibitor. HIV Clin Trials. 2014;14:192–203. doi:10.1310/hct1405-192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Spreen W, Ford SL, Chen S, Wilfret D, Margolis D, Gould E, et al. GSK1265744 pharmacokinetics in plasma and tissue after single-dose long-acting injectable Administration in Healthy Subjects. JAIDS J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2014;67:481–6. doi:10.1097/QAI.0000000000000301.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Margolis DA, Boffito M. Long-acting antiviral agents for HIV treatment. Curr Opin HIV AIDS. 2015;10:246–52. doi:10.1097/COH.0000000000000169.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Andrews CD, Heneine W. Cabotegravir long-acting for HIV-1 prevention. Curr Opin HIV AIDS. 2015;10:258–63. doi:10.1097/COH.0000000000000161.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kovarova M, Swanson MD, Sanchez RI, Baker CE, Steve J, Spagnuolo RA, et al. A long-acting formulation of the integrase inhibitor raltegravir protects humanized BLT mice from repeated high-dose vaginal HIV challenges. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016:1–11. doi:10.1093/jac/dkw042.
  46. 46.
    Yoshinaga T, Kobayashi M, Seki T, Miki S, Wakasa-Morimoto C, Suyama-Kagitani A, et al. Antiviral characteristics of GSK1265744, an HIV integrase inhibitor dosed orally or by long-acting injection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2015;59:397–406. doi:10.1128/AAC.03909-14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Mordant C, Schmitt B, Pasquier E, Demestre C, Queguiner L, Masungi C, et al. Synthesis of novel diarylpyrimidine analogues of TMC278 and their antiviral activity against HIV-1 wild-type and mutant strains. Eur J Med Chem. 2007;42:567–79. doi:10.1016/j.ejmech.2006.11.014.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Goebel F, Yakovlev A, Pozniak AL, Vinogradova E, Boogaerts G, Hoetelmans R, et al. Short-term antiviral activity of TMC278 - a novel NNRTI - in treatment-naive HIV-1-infected subjects. AIDS. 2006;20:1721–6. doi:10.1097/01.aids.0000242818.65215.bd.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Baert L. G. Van ‘t Klooster, W. Dries, M. François, A. Wouters, E. Basstanie, et al., development of a long-acting injectable formulation with nanoparticles of rilpivirine (TMC278) for HIV treatment. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2009;72:502–8. doi:10.1016/j.ejpb.2009.03.006.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Jackson A, McGowan I. Long-acting rilpivirine for HIV prevention. Curr Opin HIV AIDS. 2015;10:253–7. doi:10.1097/COH.0000000000000160.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Gautam R, Nishimura Y, Pegu A, Nason MC, Klein F, Gazumyan A, et al. A single injection of anti-HIV-1 antibodies protects against repeated SHIV challenges. Nature. 2016;533:105–9. doi:10.1038/nature17677.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Saunders KO, Pegu A, Georgiev IS, Zeng M, Joyce MG, Yang Z-Y, et al. Sustained delivery of a broadly neutralizing antibody in nonhuman primates confers long-term protection against simian/human immunodeficiency virus infection. J Virol. 2015;89:5895–903. doi:10.1128/JVI.00210-15.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Sun M, Li Y, Yuan Z, Lu W, Kang G, Fan W, et al. VRC01 antibody protects against vaginal and rectal transmission of human immunodeficiency virus 1 in hu-BLT mice. Arch Virol. 2016;161:2449–55. doi:10.1007/s00705-016-2942-4.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Ledgerwood JE, Coates EE, Yamshchikov G, Saunders JG, Holman L, Enama ME, et al. Safety, pharmacokinetics and neutralization of the broadly neutralizing HIV-1 human monoclonal antibody VRC01 in healthy adults. Clin Exp Immunol. 2015;182:289–301. doi:10.1111/cei.12692.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Whaley KJ, Zeitlin L. Antibody-based concepts for multipurpose prevention technologies. Antivir Res. 2013;100:S48–53. doi:10.1016/j.antiviral.2013.09.027.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Cheeseman HM, Olejniczak NJ, Rogers PM, King DFL, Ziprin P, Liao H-X, et al. Broadly Neutralising Antibodies Display Superior Potential Over Non- 1 Neutralising Antibodies in Preventing HIV-1 infection of Mucosal Tissue 2 3 Running Title: Mucosal HIV-1 Antibody Inhibition 4 5 2016. doi:10.1128/JVI.01762-16.
  57. 57.
    Zalevsky J, Chamberlain AK, Horton HM, Karki S, Leung IWL, Sproule TJ, et al. Enhanced antibody half-life improves in vivo activity. Nat Biotechnol. 2010;28:157–9. doi:10.1038/nbt.1601.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Dall’Acqua WF, Kiener PA, Wu H. Properties of human IgG1s engineered for enhanced binding to the neonatal fc receptor (FcRn). J Biol Chem. 2006;281:23514–24. doi:10.1074/jbc.M604292200.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Warne NW. Development of high concentration protein biopharmaceuticals: the use of platform approaches in formulation development. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2011;78:208–12. doi:10.1016/j.ejpb.2011.03.004.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Hoffman AS. The origins and evolution of “controlled” drug delivery systems. J Control Release. 2008;132:153–63. doi:10.1016/j.jconrel.2008.08.012.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Brambilla D, Luciani P, Leroux JC. Breakthrough discoveries in drug delivery technologies: the next 30 years. J Control Release. 2014;190:9–14. doi:10.1016/j.jconrel.2014.03.056.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Stevenson CL, Santini JT, Langer R. Reservoir-based drug delivery systems utilizing microtechnology. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2012;64:1590–602. doi:10.1016/j.addr.2012.02.005.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Anselmo AC, Mitragotri S. An overview of clinical and commercial impact of drug delivery systems. J Control Release. 2014;190:15–28. doi:10.1016/j.jconrel.2014.03.053.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Park K. Controlled drug delivery systems: past forward and future back. J Control Release. 2014;190:3–8. doi:10.1016/j.jconrel.2014.03.054.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Solorio L, Carlson A, Zhou H, Exner AA. Implantable Drug Delivery Systems. In: Eng. Polym. Syst. Improv. Drug Deliv., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2014. pp. 189–225. doi:10.1002/9781118747896.ch7.
  66. 66.
    Rajgor N, Bhaskar V, Patel M. Implantable drug delivery systems: an overview. Syst Rev Pharm. 2011;2:91. doi:10.4103/0975-8453.86297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Lewis KA, Goldyn AK, West KW, Eugster EA. A single histrelin implant is effective for 2 years for treatment of central precocious puberty. J Pediatr. 2013;163:1214–6. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2013.05.033.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Wenzl R, Van Beek A, Schnabel P, Huber J. Pharmacokinetics of etonogestrel released from the contraceptive implant Implanon®. Contraception. 1998;58:283–8. doi:10.1016/S0010-7824(98)00110-3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Palomba S, Falbo A, Di Cello A, Materazzo C, Zullo F. Nexplanon: the new implant for long-term contraception. A comprehensive descriptive review. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2012;28:710–21. doi:10.3109/09513590.2011.652247.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Ritger PL, Peppas NA. A simple equation for description of solute release I. Fickian and non-fickian release from non-swellable devices in the form of slabs, spheres, cylinders or discs. J Control Release. 1987;5:23–36. doi:10.1016/0168-3659(87)90034-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Hsieh DS, Rhine WD, Langer R. Zero-order controlled-release polymer matrices for micro- and macromolecules. J Pharm Sci. 1983;72:17–22. doi:10.1002/jps.2600720105.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Del Valle EMM, Galán MA, Carbonell RG. Drug delivery technologies: the way forward in the new decade. Ind Eng Chem Res. 2009;48:2475–86. doi:10.1021/ie800886m.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Au JS, Jang SH, Zheng J, Chen CT, Song S, Hu L, et al. Determinants of drug delivery and transport to solid tumors. J Control Release. 2001;74:31–46. doi:10.1016/S0168-3659(01)00308-X.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Vidin E, Garbin O, Rodriguez B, Favre R, Bettahar-Lebugle K. Removal of etonogestrel contraceptive implants in the operating theater: report on 28 cases. Contraception. 2007;76:35–9. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2007.03.012.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Mascarenhas L. Insertion and removal of Implanon®. Contraception. 1998;58:79S–83S. doi:10.1016/S0010-7824(98)00121-8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Williams DF. Biocompatibility pathways; biomaterials-induced sterile inflammation, Mechanotransduction and principles of biocompatibility control. ACS Biomater Sci Eng. 2016; doi:10.1021/acsbiomaterials.6b00607.
  77. 77.
    Klopfleisch K, Jung F. The pathology of the foreign body reaction against biomaterials. J Biomed Mater Res Part A. 2017;105(3):927–940. doi:10.1002/jbm.a.35958.
  78. 78.
    Sheikh Z, Brooks PJ, Barzilay O, Fine N, Glogauer M. Macrophages, foreign body giant cells and their response to implantable biomaterials. Materials (Basel). 2015;8:5671–701. doi:10.3390/ma8095269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Benagiano G, Gabelnick H, Farris M. Contraceptive devices: subcutaneous delivery systems. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2008;5:623–37. doi:10.1586/17434440.5.5.623.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Holt J, Brimer A, Fetherston S, Boyd P, Devlin B, Malcolm K. Matrix vaginal ring formulations that maintain target in vitro release rates of Dapivirine and Levonorgestrel (alone or in combination) over 90 days. AIDS Res Hum Retrovir. 2014;30:A138–9. doi:10.1089/aid.2014.5276.abstract.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Schlesinger E, Ciaccio N, Desai TA. Polycaprolactone thin-film drug delivery systems: empirical and predictive models for device design. Mater Sci Eng C. 2015;57:232–9. doi:10.1016/j.msec.2015.07.027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Ratner BD. The biocompatibility manifesto: biocompatibility for the twenty-first century. J Cardiovasc Transl Res. 2011;4:523–7. doi:10.1007/s12265-011-9287-x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Burada PS, Hänggi P, Marchesoni F, Schmid G, Talkner P. Diffusion in confined geometries. ChemPhysChem. 2009;10:45–54. doi:10.1002/cphc.200800526.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Bernards DA, Lance KD, Ciaccio NA, Desai TA. Nanostructured thin film polymer devices for constant-rate protein delivery. Nano Lett. 2012;12:5355–61. doi:10.1021/nl302747y.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Ferrati S, Fine D, You J, De Rosa E, Hudson L, Zabre E, et al. Leveraging nanochannels for universal, zero-order drug delivery in vivo. J Control Release. 2013;172:1011–9. doi:10.1016/j.jconrel.2013.09.028.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Gunawardana M, Remedios-Chan M, Miller CS, Fanter R, Yang F, Marzinke MA, et al. Pharmacokinetics of long-acting tenofovir alafenamide (GS-7340) subdermal implant for HIV prophylaxis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2015;59:3913–9. doi:10.1128/AAC.00656-15.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Ma G, Song C, Sun H, Yang J, Leng X. A biodegradable levonorgestrel-releasing implant made of PCL/F68 compound as tested in rats and dogs. Contraception. 2006;74:141–7. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2006.02.013.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Ray AS, Fordyce MW, Hitchcock MJM. Tenofovir alafenamide: a novel prodrug of tenofovir for the treatment of human immunodeficiency virus. Antivir Res. 2016;125:63–70. doi:10.1016/j.antiviral.2015.11.009.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Margot NA, Liu Y, Miller MD, Callebaut C. High resistance barrier to tenofovir alafenamide is driven by higher loading of tenofovir diphosphate into target cells compared to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate. Antivir Res. 2016; doi:10.1016/j.antiviral.2016.05.012.
  90. 90.
    Lee WA, He GX, Eisenberg E, Cihlar T, Swaminathan S, Mulato A, et al. Selective intracellular activation of a novel prodrug of the human immunodeficiency virus reverse transcriptase inhibitor tenofovir leads to preferential distribution and accumulation in lymphatic tissue. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2005;49:1898–906. doi:10.1128/AAC.49.5.1898-1906.2005.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Zhang W, Parniak MA, Sarafianos SG, Cost MR, Rohan LC. Development of a vaginal delivery film containing EFdA, a novel anti-HIV nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor. Int J Pharm. 2014;461:203–13. doi:10.1016/j.ijpharm.2013.11.056.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Michailidis E, Ryan E, Hachiya A, Kirby K, Marchand B, Leslie M, et al. Hypersusceptibility mechanism of Tenofovir-resistant HIV to EFdA. Retrovirology. 2013;10:65. doi:10.1186/1742-4690-10-65.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Langer R. Implantable controlled release systems. Pharmacol Ther. 1983;21:35–51. doi:10.1016/0163-7258(83)90066-9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Cherng JY, Hou TY, Shih MF, Talsma H, Hennink WE. Polyurethane-based drug delivery systems. Int J Pharm. 2013;450:145–62. doi:10.1016/j.ijpharm.2013.04.063.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Bolto B, Tran T, Hoang M, Xie Z. Crosslinked poly(vinyl alcohol) membranes. Prog Polym Sci. 2009;34:969–81. doi:10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2009.05.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Moulay S. Review: poly(vinyl alcohol) Functionalizations and applications. Polym-Plast Technol Eng. 2015;54:1289–319. doi:10.1080/03602559.2015.1021487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Hsu TT, Langer R. Polymers for the controlled release of macromolecules: effect of molecular weight of ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer. J Biomed Mater Res. 1985;19:445–60. doi:10.1002/jbm.820190409.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Robb WL. Thin silicon membranes. Their permeation properties and some applications. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1968;146:119–37. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1968.tb20277.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Malcolm K, Woolfson D, Russell J, Tallon P, McAuley L, Craig D. Influence of silicone elastomer solubility and diffusivity on the in vitro release of drugs from intravaginal rings. J Control Release. 2003;90:217–25. doi:10.1016/S0168-3659(03)00178-0.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Petrova NV, Evtushenko AM, Chikhacheva IP, Zubov VP, Kubrakova IV. Effect of microwave irradiation on the cross-linking of polyvinyl alcohol. Russ J Appl Chem. 2005;78:1158–61. doi:10.1007/s11167-005-0470-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Byron PR, Dalby RN. Effects of heat treatment on the permeability of polyvinyl alcohol films to a hydrophilic solute. J Pharm Sci. 1987;76:65–7. doi:10.1002/jps.2600760118.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Sun H, Mei L, Song C, Cui X, Wang P. The in vivo degradation, absorption and excretion of PCL-based implant. Biomaterials. 2006;27:1735–40. doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.09.019.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Silva-Cunha A, Fialho SL, Naud MC, Behar-Cohen F. Poly-ε-caprolactone intravitreous devices: an in vivo study. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009;50:2312–8. doi:10.1167/iovs.08-2969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Ali SAM, Zhong S-P, Doherty PJ, Williams DF. Mechanisms of polymer degradation in implantable devices I. Poly(caprolactone). Biomaterials. 1993;14:648–56. doi:10.1016/0142-9612(93)90063-8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Garza-Flores J, Hall PE, Perez-Palacios G. Long-acting hormonal contraceptives for women. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 1991;40:697–704. doi:10.1016/0960-0760(91)90293-E.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Schlesinger E, Johengen D, Luecke E, Rothrock G, McGowan I, van der Straten A, et al. A tunable, biodegradable, thin-film polymer device as a long-acting implant delivering Tenofovir Alafenamide fumarate for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis. Pharm Res. 2016;33:1649–56. doi:10.1007/s11095-016-1904-6.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Jullien V, Tréluyer J-M, Pons G, Rey E. Determination of tenofovir in human plasma by high-performance liquid chromatography with spectrofluorimetric detection. J Chromatogr B. 2003;785:377–81. doi:10.1016/S1570-0232(02)00933-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Birkus G, Wang R, Liu X, Kutty N, MacArthur H, Cihlar T, et al. Cathepsin a is the major hydrolase catalyzing the intracellular hydrolysis of the antiretroviral nucleotide phosphonoamidate prodrugs GS-7340 and GS-9131. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2007;51:543–50. doi:10.1128/AAC.00968-06.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Matheson LE, Hunke WA. Mass transport properties of co(polyether) polyurethane membranes I: preparation and characterization. J Pharm Sci. 1981;70:571–3. doi:10.1002/jps.2600700528.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Guan J, Sacks MS, Beckman EJ, Wagner WR. Biodegradable poly (ether ester urethane) urea elastomers based on poly (ether ester) triblock copolymers and putrescine: synthesis, characterization and cytocompatibility. Biomaterials. 2004;25:85–96. doi:10.1016/S0142-9612(03)00476-9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Shore N. Introducing Vantas: the first once-yearly Luteinising hormone-releasing hormone agonist. Eur Urol Suppl. 2010;9:701–5. doi:10.1016/j.eursup.2010.08.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Schlegel PN. Efficacy and safety of histrelin subdermal implant in patients with advanced prostate cancer. J Urol. 2006;175:1353–8. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(05)00649-X.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Schlegel P. A review of the pharmacokinetic and pharmacological properties of a once-yearly administered histrelin acetate implant in the treatment of prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2009;103:7–13. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.08383.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Croxatto HB. Progestin implants. Steroids. 2000;65:681–5. doi:10.1016/S0039-128X(00)00124-0.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Ferrati S, Nicolov E, Bansal S, Zabre E, Geninatti T, Ziemys A, et al. Delivering enhanced testosterone replacement therapy through Nanochannels. Adv Healthc Mater. 2015;4:446–51. doi:10.1002/adhm.201400348.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Nicolov E, Ferrati S, Goodall R, Hudson L, Hosali S, Crowley M, et al. Mp43-20 nanotechnology-based implant for long term testosterone replacement. J Urol. 2014;191:e485–6. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2014.02.1177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Henry RR, Rosenstock J, Logan D, Alessi T, Luskey K, Baron MA. Continuous subcutaneous delivery of exenatide via ITCA 650 leads to sustained glycemic control and weight loss for 48 weeks in metformin-treated subjects with type 2 diabetes. J Diabetes Complicat. 2014;28:393–8. doi:10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2013.12.009.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Rohloff CM, Alessi TR, Yang B, Dahms J, Carr JP, Lautenbach SD. DUROS technology delivers peptides and proteins at consistent rate continuously for 3 to 12 months. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2008;2:461–7. doi:10.1177/193229680800200316.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Clark MR et al. Long-acting intrauterine system delivers integrase inhibitor throughout the reproductive tract of rabbits and macaques. Poster P07.40. HIV R4P. Chicago, IL. 2016.Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    Romano J, Manning J, Hemmerling A, McGrory E, Young Holt B. Prioritizing multipurpose prevention technology development and investments using a target product profile. Antivir Res. 2013;100:S32–8. doi:10.1016/j.antiviral.2013.09.016.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Lucas J, El-Sahn M, Kong K, Kretschmer S. Assessing the potential of MPTs in Uganda, Nigeria, and South Africa. Seattle, WA: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; 2014.Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    Meyers K, Rodriguez K, Moeller RW, Gratch I, Markowitz M, Halkitis PN. High interest in a long-acting injectable formulation of pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV in young men who have sex with men in NYC: a P18 cohort substudy. PLoS One. 2014;9:1–16. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0114700.Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    Reuter S, Smith A. Implanon: user views in the first year across three family planning services in the Trent region, UK. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2003;8:27–36. doi:10.1080/713604396.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Guthrie KM, Vargas S, Shaw JG, Rosen RK, Van Den Berg JJ, Kiser PF, et al. The promise of intravaginal rings for prevention: user perceptions of biomechanical properties and implications for prevention product development. PLoS One. 2015;10:1–17. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0145642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Lin AH, Breger TL, Barnhart M, Kim A, Vangsgaard C, Harris E. Learning from the private sector: towards a keener understanding of the end-user for microbicide introduction planning. J Int AIDS Soc. 2014;17:1–6. doi:10.7448/IAS.17.3.19162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Murphy PA, Brixner D. Hormonal contraceptive discontinuation patterns according to formulation: investigation of associations in an administrative claims database. Contraception. 2008;77:257–63. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2008.01.002.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Leite IC, Gupta N. Assessing regional differences in contraceptive discontinuation, failure and switching in Brazil. Reprod Health. 2007;4:6. doi:10.1186/1742-4755-4-6.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Jacobstein R, Stanley H. Contraceptive implants: providing better choice to meet growing family planning demand. Glob Heal Sci Pract. 2013;1:11–7. doi:10.9745/GHSP-D-12-00003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    Duvall S, Thurston S, Weinberger M, Nuccio O, Fuchs-Montgomery N. Scaling up delivery of contraceptive implants in sub-Saharan Africa: operational experiences of Marie stopes international. Glob Heal Sci Pract. 2014;2:72–92. doi:10.9745/GHSP-D-13-00116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. 130.
    Walensky RP, Jacobsen MM, Bekker L-G, Parker RA, Wood R, Resch SC, et al. Potential clinical and economic value of long-acting Preexposure prophylaxis for South African women at high-risk for HIV infection. J Infect Dis. 2016;213:1523–31. doi:10.1093/infdis/jiv523.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    Ying R, Sharma M, Heffron R, Celum CL, Baeten JM, Katabira E, et al. Cost-effectiveness of pre-exposure prophylaxis targeted to high-risk serodiscordant couples as a bridge to sustained ART use in Kampala, Uganda. J Int AIDS Soc. 2015;18:1–9. doi:10.7448/IAS.18.4.20013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. 132.
    Chen A, Kosimbei G, Mwai D. Cost of providing oral pre-exposure prophylaxis to prevent Hiv infection among sex workers. Washington, DC: Futures Group; 2014.Google Scholar
  133. 133.
    Pretorius C, Stover J, Bollinger L, Bacaër N, Williams B. Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and its impact on HIV-1 transmission in South Africa. PLoS One. 2010;5 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013646.
  134. 134.
    Kleiner LW, Wright JC, Wang Y. Evolution of implantable and insertable drug delivery systems. J Control Release. 2014;181:1–10. doi:10.1016/j.jconrel.2014.02.006.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. 135.
    Brayden DJ. Controlled release technologies for drug delivery. Drug Discov Today. 2003;8:976–8. doi:10.1016/S1359-6446(03)02874-5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. 136.
    Landovitz RJ, Grinsztejn B. Long-acting injectable Preexposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention in South Africa: is there a will and a way? J Infect Dis. 2016;213:1519–20. doi:10.1093/infdis/jiv524.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. 137.
    Blaschke TF, Osterberg L, Vrijens B, Urquhart J. Adherence to medications: insights arising from studies on the unreliable link between prescribed and actual drug dosing histories. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol. 2012;52:275–301. doi:10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-011711-113247.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. 138.
    van der Straten A, Montgomery ET, Hartmann M, Minnis A. Methodological lessons from clinical trials and the future of microbicide research. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep. 2012;10:89–102. doi:10.1007/s11904-012-0141-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. 139.
    Jacobstein R. Long-acting and permanent contraception: an international development, service delivery perspective. J Midwifery Women’s Heal. 2007;52:361–7. doi:10.1016/j.jmwh.2007.01.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. 140.
    Arya V, Au S, Belew Y, Miele P, Struble K. Regulatory challenges in developing long-acting antiretrovirals for treatment and prevention of HIV infection. Curr Opin HIV AIDS. 2015;10:278–81. doi:10.1097/COH.0000000000000163.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. 141.
    Wu P, Grainger DW. Drug/device combinations for local drug therapies and infection prophylaxis. Biomaterials. 2006;27:2450–67. doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.11.031.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Controlled Release Society 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • William R. Lykins
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ellen Luecke
    • 3
  • Daniel Johengen
    • 2
  • Ariane van der Straten
    • 2
    • 4
  • Tejal A. Desai
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.UC Berkeley-UCSF Graduate Program in BioengineeringSan Francisco and BerkeleyUSA
  2. 2.Department of Bioengineering and Therapeutic SciencesUniversity of California San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA
  3. 3.Women’s Global Health ImperativeRTI InternationalSan FranciscoUSA
  4. 4.Center for AIDS Prevention Studies, Department of MedicineUniversity of California San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations