CLINICAL TRIALS PROFILE FOR EFAVIRENZ; LAMIVUDINE; TENOFOVIR DISOPROXIL FUMARATE

All Clinical Trials for EFAVIRENZ; LAMIVUDINE; TENOFOVIR DISOPROXIL FUMARATE

Trial ID	Title	Status	Sponsor	Phase	Start Date	Summary
NCT00013520 ↗	Comparison of Three Different Initial Treatments Without Protease Inhibitors for HIV Infection	Completed	National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)	Phase 3	1969-12-31	The purpose of this study is to compare the effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of 3 anti-HIV combination treatments that do not use protease inhibitors (PIs). The current rule for starting treatment of HIV infection is to combine members from different classes of anti-HIV drugs, such as 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) and either a PI or a nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI). However, these combinations can be complicated and difficult to take, can cause a number of side effects, and may become ineffective. Combinations that are simpler, better tolerated, and more effective are needed. Because PIs can cause long-term side effects and because HIV can become resistant to many of them at the same time, anti-HIV combination treatments that do not use PIs are being tested.
NCT00039741 ↗	Anti-HIV Drug Regimens and Treatment-Switching Guidelines in HIV Infected Children	Completed	Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)	Phase 2/Phase 3	2002-08-01	Little is known about what treatment combinations are best for HIV infected children. This study examined the long-term effectiveness of different anti-HIV drug combinations in children and strategies for switching treatment if the first treatment does not work. The study enrolled children who had not previously taken anti-HIV medication. Participants in this study were recruited in the United States, South America and Europe. Some European children may also enroll in a substudy that will observe changes in body fat in children taking anti-HIV medications.
NCT00039741 ↗	Anti-HIV Drug Regimens and Treatment-Switching Guidelines in HIV Infected Children	Completed	PENTA Foundation	Phase 2/Phase 3	2002-08-01	Little is known about what treatment combinations are best for HIV infected children. This study examined the long-term effectiveness of different anti-HIV drug combinations in children and strategies for switching treatment if the first treatment does not work. The study enrolled children who had not previously taken anti-HIV medication. Participants in this study were recruited in the United States, South America and Europe. Some European children may also enroll in a substudy that will observe changes in body fat in children taking anti-HIV medications.
NCT00039741 ↗	Anti-HIV Drug Regimens and Treatment-Switching Guidelines in HIV Infected Children	Completed	National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)	Phase 2/Phase 3	2002-08-01	Little is known about what treatment combinations are best for HIV infected children. This study examined the long-term effectiveness of different anti-HIV drug combinations in children and strategies for switching treatment if the first treatment does not work. The study enrolled children who had not previously taken anti-HIV medication. Participants in this study were recruited in the United States, South America and Europe. Some European children may also enroll in a substudy that will observe changes in body fat in children taking anti-HIV medications.
NCT00050895 ↗	Comparing the Safety, Effectiveness, and Tolerability of Three Anti-HIV Drug Regimens for Treatment-Naive Patients	Completed	National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)	Phase 3	1969-12-31	With new strategies and drugs available, many different regimens exist for the treatment of HIV. The purpose of this study is to compare three different anti-HIV drug regimens as first-time treatments for HIV infection.
NCT00084136 ↗	Prospective Evaluation of Anti-retroviral Combinations for Treatment Naive, HIV Infected Persons in Resource-limited Settings	Completed	National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)	Phase 4	2005-05-01	This study compared 3 different three-drug combinations in HIV infected individuals starting their first HIV treatment regimens. Participants were recruited from resource-limited areas in Africa, Asia, South America, Haiti, and also from the United States. The study hypothesis was each of the once daily combinations (PI based, or NNRTI based) would not have inferior efficacy compared to the twice daily NNRTI based combination.
NCT00084136 ↗	Prospective Evaluation of Anti-retroviral Combinations for Treatment Naive, HIV Infected Persons in Resource-limited Settings	Completed	AIDS Clinical Trials Group	Phase 4	2005-05-01	This study compared 3 different three-drug combinations in HIV infected individuals starting their first HIV treatment regimens. Participants were recruited from resource-limited areas in Africa, Asia, South America, Haiti, and also from the United States. The study hypothesis was each of the once daily combinations (PI based, or NNRTI based) would not have inferior efficacy compared to the twice daily NNRTI based combination.

Clinical Trial Conditions for EFAVIRENZ; LAMIVUDINE; TENOFOVIR DISOPROXIL FUMARATE

Condition Name

Condition Name for EFAVIRENZ; LAMIVUDINE; TENOFOVIR DISOPROXIL FUMARATE
Intervention	Trials
HIV Infections	11
Hiv	3
HIV-1 Infection	3
HIV-1-infection	2

Condition MeSH

Condition MeSH for EFAVIRENZ; LAMIVUDINE; TENOFOVIR DISOPROXIL FUMARATE
Intervention	Trials
HIV Infections	17
Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome	8
Immunologic Deficiency Syndromes	5
Infections	3

Clinical Trial Locations for EFAVIRENZ; LAMIVUDINE; TENOFOVIR DISOPROXIL FUMARATE

Trials by Country

Trials by Country for EFAVIRENZ; LAMIVUDINE; TENOFOVIR DISOPROXIL FUMARATE
Location	Trials
United States	123
Germany	8
South Africa	6
Italy	5
United Kingdom	5

Trials by US State

Trials by US State for EFAVIRENZ; LAMIVUDINE; TENOFOVIR DISOPROXIL FUMARATE
Location	Trials
North Carolina	7
New York	7
Illinois	7
Florida	7
California	7

Clinical Trial Progress for EFAVIRENZ; LAMIVUDINE; TENOFOVIR DISOPROXIL FUMARATE

Clinical Trial Phase

Clinical Trial Phase for EFAVIRENZ; LAMIVUDINE; TENOFOVIR DISOPROXIL FUMARATE
Clinical Trial Phase	Trials
Phase 4	4
Phase 3	14
Phase 2/Phase 3	1

Clinical Trial Status

Clinical Trial Status for EFAVIRENZ; LAMIVUDINE; TENOFOVIR DISOPROXIL FUMARATE
Clinical Trial Phase	Trials
Completed	19
Recruiting	3
Unknown status	3

Clinical Trial Sponsors for EFAVIRENZ; LAMIVUDINE; TENOFOVIR DISOPROXIL FUMARATE

Sponsor Name

Sponsor Name for EFAVIRENZ; LAMIVUDINE; TENOFOVIR DISOPROXIL FUMARATE
Sponsor	Trials
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)	7
Gilead Sciences	6
Willem Daniel Francois Venter	3

Sponsor Type

Sponsor Type for EFAVIRENZ; LAMIVUDINE; TENOFOVIR DISOPROXIL FUMARATE
Sponsor	Trials
Other	33
Industry	16
NIH	8

Clinical Trials Update, Market Analysis, and Projection for EFAVIRENZ; LAMIVUDUDINE; TENOFOVIR DISOPROXIL FUMARATE

Last updated: October 28, 2025

Introduction

The combination comprising efavirenz, lamivudine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (commonly known as Atripla or similar formulations) represents a cornerstone in the treatment of HIV-1. As the global demand for effective antiretroviral therapies (ART) evolves, understanding the latest clinical developments, market dynamics, and future growth trajectories for this triple therapy combo becomes critical for stakeholders, including pharmaceutical companies, investors, healthcare providers, and policy makers.

Clinical Trials Update

Evolution of Clinical Evidence

Efavirenz, lamivudine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) have undergone extensive clinical evaluation over the past two decades. The initial pivotal trials, such as the ECHO and THRIVE studies, established the efficacy and tolerability of efavirenz-based regimens in naïve HIV patients, demonstrating comparable efficacy to protease inhibitor-based therapies with acceptable safety profiles [1].

Recent clinical research focuses on optimizing safety, adherence, and resistance management, especially given concerns about efavirenz-associated neuropsychiatric adverse events. The development of second-generation integrase inhibitors and tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) formulations has prompted comparative trials against efavirenz-based regimens.

Ongoing and Recent Studies

Current trials examine the efficacy of TDF versus TAF in combination regimens. Notably:

• GS-PIRO (Gilead Sciences): Comparing TDF-based regimens with TAF to evaluate renal and bone safety profiles.

• ADVANCE (Nixon et al., 2020): Shows that switching from efavirenz-based regimens to integrase inhibitors improves tolerability without compromising virologic suppression [2].

• Long-term Safety Studies: Extended follow-up data from TRUVADA and DESCOVY studies continue reinforcing the favorable safety profile of tenofovir formulations, but with ongoing safety assessments concerning renal and bone health.

Regulatory Perspectives

The FDA and EMA have approved several fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) incorporating these drugs. The regulatory landscape now emphasizes long-term safety, with recent approvals favoring TAF-based formulations over TDF, especially for patients at higher risk of renal or bone adverse effects.

Market Analysis

Current Market Size

The global HIV therapeutics market was valued at approximately USD 21.4 billion in 2022 and is projected to grow at a CAGR of roughly 4.1% through 2030 [3]. The segment for efavirenz-based regimens remains significant, although its market share is gradually declining in favor of newer, safer alternatives.

Key Market Drivers

• Growing Global HIV Burden: UNAIDS reports over 38 million people living with HIV worldwide in 2021 [4]. Sub-Saharan Africa accounts for nearly 70% of cases, driving demand for affordable ART.

• Introduction of Fixed-Dose Combinations: Simplification of regimens enhances adherence and reduces transmission rates.

• Shift Toward TAF: Health authorities increasingly endorse TAF-based formulations, reducing the reliance on efavirenz and TDF combinations.

Regional Market Dynamics

• North America and Europe: Mature markets with high adoption of TAF-based regimens, driven by regulatory policies and ongoing research.

• Asia-Pacific: Rapid market expansion, especially in India and China, fueled by increasing HIV prevalence and government initiatives.

• Africa: Largest patient pool; demand driven by WHO’s 2016 guidelines recommending lifelong ART, with a focus on cost-sensitive generic manufacturing.

Competitive Landscape

Major players include Gilead Sciences, ViiV Healthcare, and Merck & Co., with products like Gilead’s Biktarvy (bictegravir/TAF/emtricitabine) gaining prominence. Many generics manufacturers are entering the market, driven by patent expirations and the demand for affordable options, especially in low-income countries.

Market Projections

Future Growth Factors

• Transition to TAF: Projected to accelerate, reducing efavirenz-based formulations’ market share by approximately 25% by 2030.

• Policy and Funding: Increased global funding for HIV treatment and WHO guidelines favoring integrase inhibitors over efavirenz.

• Resistance Patterns: Growing concern over NNRTI resistance (efavirenz) encourages therapy switching and development of next-generation agents.

Forecasted Trends

• Market Penetration of TAF-Based Regimens: Expected to dominate the ART market by 2030, constituting over 65% of the antiretroviral drug market.

• Generic Adoption: Cost reductions through generics could expand access, especially in resource-limited settings, impacting branded product revenues.

• Innovation: Next-generation fixed-dose combinations (e.g., long-acting injectables) may influence the traditional oral regimen market.

Conclusion and Strategic Outlook

The therapeutic landscape for efavirenz, lamivudine, and tenofovir continues to shift towards safer, more tolerable combinations centered on tenofovir alafenamide and integrase inhibitors. While the current market remains substantial, especially in developing regions, this trend suggests a decline in efavirenz-based regimen sales may accelerate over the next decade.

Pharmaceutical entities should prioritize R&D investments in next-generation, long-acting formulations and explore patent strategies to stay competitive. Policy adaptation and market access strategies focusing on affordability and resistance monitoring will be critical to maintaining relevance in this evolving segment.

---

Key Takeaways

• Clinical evolution favors TAF over TDF and integrase inhibitor-based regimens over efavirenz, driven by improved safety profiles.

• Global HIV treatment demand sustains a sizable ART market, but innovation and safety profiles influence product preferences.

• Market projections highlight increasing dominance of TAF-based regimens, potentially reducing efavirenz-based sales by over 25% by 2030.

• Resource-limited markets will continue to be driven by cost, with generics playing a key role in expanding access.

• Long-acting injectable formulations and regimen simplification will reshape the future therapeutic landscape.

---

FAQs

1. How does efavirenz compare to newer antiretroviral agents in terms of efficacy?
Efavirenz remains highly effective in viral suppression; however, newer agents like bictegravir demonstrate comparable or superior efficacy with a better safety profile and fewer neuropsychiatric adverse events.

2. What are the main safety concerns associated with efavirenz-based therapy?
Neuropsychiatric effects (e.g., depression, dizziness), teratogenic risk in pregnant women, and drug-drug interactions limit efavirenz’s use, prompting preference for newer options.

3. How have regulatory approvals evolved regarding efavirenz-based regimens?
Regulatory agencies increasingly favor TAF-based fixed-dose combinations due to improved renal and bone safety, gradually phasing out efavirenz-based formulations in favor of alternatives.

4. What is the outlook for generic versions of efavirenz, lamivudine, and TDF?
Generics significantly reduce drug costs, especially in low-income countries, supporting expanded access. Patent expirations have facilitated recent market entry of these affordable options.

5. What future innovations could impact this drug combination’s market?
Long-acting injectable formulations, simplified combination pills, and novel drug classes will challenge traditional oral regimens, steering the market towards more patient-friendly options.

---

Sources

[1] Moore et al., “Efficacy and Safety of Efavirenz-Based Regimens,” The New England Journal of Medicine, 2004.
[2] Nixon et al., “Long-term outcomes of switching from efavirenz-based regimens to integrase inhibitor-based therapy,” Lancet HIV, 2020.
[3] MarketWatch, “Global HIV Therapeutics Market Size & Trends,” 2022.
[4] UNAIDS, “Global HIV & AIDS Statistics — 2021 Fact Sheet.”