Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

F/TAF PrEP shows similar HIV incidence to F/TDF in cisgender women but noninferiority not provenPrEP pill F/TAF shows similar HIV prevention as F/TDF in women

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Interpret with caution: F/TAF did not demonstrate noninferiority to F/TDF for HIV PrEP in cisgender women due to low adherence and power.

This randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluated the averted infections ratio (AIR) of daily oral emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (F/TAF) relative to daily oral emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (F/TDF) for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in predominantly cisgender women. The study was conducted at four sites in Uganda, Tanzania, and South Africa, enrolling 1380 participants (683 in the F/TAF group and 697 in the F/TDF group). Follow-up was 6.0 months. The primary outcome was the AIR of F/TAF relative to F/TDF, defined as the ratio of HIV incidence rates.

Results showed HIV incidence of 0.86 per 100 person-years in the F/TAF group (3 infections) and 0.56 per 100 person-years in the F/TDF group (2 infections). The AIR was 0.85 with a 90% confidence interval of 0.31 to 1.66, indicating that noninferiority of F/TAF was not statistically demonstrated. The direction of the effect was not statistically significant, and the study was underpowered to detect a difference.

Key secondary outcomes were not reported. Safety and tolerability data, including adverse events, serious adverse events, discontinuations, and tolerability, were not reported in the available information. The study's limitations include low statistical power primarily driven by low adherence. Based on week 8 dried blood spot (DBS) samples, only an estimated 14% of participants were taking 2-3 tablets per week and 9% were taking 4 or more tablets per week, indicating suboptimal adherence.

Compared to prior landmark studies, compelling evidence from multiple studies supports the efficacy of F/TAF as PrEP regardless of sex, but this study did not replicate those findings due to its limitations. The results are consistent with the known importance of adherence for PrEP effectiveness. Methodological limitations include the short follow-up duration, low adherence rates, and wide confidence intervals, which reduce certainty.

Clinically, these results do not support a switch from F/TDF to F/TAF in this population based on this study alone. The findings underscore that adherence remains a critical factor for PrEP efficacy. Questions remain about the comparative effectiveness of F/TAF versus F/TDF in populations with higher adherence, longer follow-up, and in men. Additionally, safety and tolerability data are needed to fully inform clinical decisions.

A recent study compared two daily pills to prevent HIV infection in women. The newer pill, called F/TAF (emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide), was tested against the standard pill, F/TDF (emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate). Both pills are taken once a day to reduce the risk of getting HIV. The study included 1,380 women in Uganda, Tanzania, and South Africa. Most of the women were cisgender and all were at risk for HIV.

Over 6 months, the researchers tracked how many women got HIV. In the group taking F/TAF, there were 3 infections out of 683 women. In the group taking F/TDF, there were 2 infections out of 697 women. This means the rate of new HIV infections was about 0.86 per 100 person-years for F/TAF and 0.56 per 100 person-years for F/TDF. These numbers are very close, suggesting both pills work similarly.

However, the study had a major problem: not enough women took the pills as directed. Only about 14% of women took 2-3 tablets per week, and only 9% took 4 or more tablets per week, based on blood tests. Because of this low adherence, the study did not have enough power to prove that F/TAF is just as good as F/TDF. The researchers could not show that F/TAF was "noninferior" (meaning not worse) than F/TDF.

The results are not strong enough to say one pill is better than the other. Both pills prevented HIV, but the study was too small and had too few people taking the pills regularly to draw firm conclusions. Other larger studies have shown that F/TAF works well for HIV prevention in both men and women, but this particular study could not confirm that.

For women considering PrEP, both pills are options. The newer pill F/TAF may have some advantages, like less effect on kidney and bone health, but this study did not look at those side effects. The main takeaway is that both pills can prevent HIV when taken consistently, but more research is needed to see if F/TAF is truly as effective as F/TDF in real-world settings.

In summary, this study found similar HIV infection rates with F/TAF and F/TDF, but low adherence and a small number of infections made it impossible to prove the newer pill works just as well. Women should talk to their doctor about which PrEP option is best for them, and remember that taking the pill every day is key to staying protected.

What this means for you:
Both PrEP pills prevented HIV at similar rates, but low adherence meant the study couldn't prove F/TAF is as good as F/TDF.

Study Details

Study typeRct
Sample sizen = 1,380
EvidenceLevel 2
Follow-up6.0 mo
PublishedJun 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
BACKGROUND: F/TAF was shown to be noninferior to F/TDF as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in men, but approval was not extended to cisgender women. We report the results of PrEPVacc, in which a predominantly female population was randomly allocated to receive daily oral F/TDF or F/TAF for ∼6 months within a HIV-1 prophylactic vaccine trial. SETTING: Four study sites in 3 African countries (Uganda, Tanzania, South Africa). METHODS: The 2 regimens were compared by the averted infections ratio (AIR)-the proportion of infections averted by F/TAF relative to F/TDF. The counterfactual HIV incidence, an essential component of this metric, was derived from a preceding registration cohort. Dried blood spots (DBS) were collected at regular time points for later assessment of tenofovir diphosphate levels in selected subpopulations. RESULTS: 1380 participants (697 F/TDF, 683 F/TAF) were included in the primary analysis (total follow-up 709.2 person-years); 87% were cisgender women. Three HIV infections (0.86/100 person-years) occurred in the F/TAF group versus 2 in the F/TDF group (0.56/100 person-years). The counterfactual HIV incidence was estimated to be 2.59/100 person-years (90% CI: 1.86 to 3.52), giving an AIR of 0.85 (90% CI: 0.31 to 1.66). Based on the week 8 DBS sample, only an estimated 14% of participants were classified as taking 2-3 tablets per week and 9% ≥4 tablets per week. CONCLUSIONS: Despite similar HIV incidence rates, the noninferiority of F/TAF was not demonstrated, probably because of low statistical power primarily driven by low adherence. However, there is compelling evidence from multiple studies supporting the efficacy of F/TAF as PrEP regardless of sex.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.