Last Updated: August 10, 2026

CLINICAL TRIALS PROFILE FOR LAMIVUDINE, NEVIRAPINE AND ZIDOVUDINE


✉ Email this page to a colleague

« Back to Dashboard


All Clinical Trials for LAMIVUDINE, NEVIRAPINE AND ZIDOVUDINE

Trial ID Title Status Sponsor Phase Start Date Summary
NCT00000896 ↗ A Study to Compare the Effectiveness of a Four Drug Anti-HIV Regimen Given Alone or in Combination With GM-CSF or IL-12 to HIV-Positive Patients Completed National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) N/A 1969-12-31 The purpose of this study is to examine how the level of HIV is reduced in the blood when anti-HIV therapy is initiated. This study will also evaluate whether adding GM-CSF or IL-12 to the anti-HIV drug regimen will increase the rate that HIV is reduced. The anti-HIV drugs used in this study will include lamivudine (3TC), zidovudine (ZDV), indinavir (IDV), nevirapine (NVP), and stavudine (d4T). All have been used successfully to treat HIV. GM-CSF has been used to treat certain blood disorders; it will be used as an experimental drug in this study. IL-12 (interleukin-12) is a protein found naturally in the body that is thought to boost the immune system. Although GM-CSF and IL-12 have no direct effect against HIV, these drugs may improve the ability of the immune system to fight the virus.
NCT00000902 ↗ A Study on the Management of Combination Anti-HIV Drug Therapy in HIV-Positive Children With Prior Treatment Completed National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Phase 1 1969-12-31 The purpose of this study is to determine the value of changing anti-HIV medications in children with progressive HIV disease who have received previous treatment. Plasma viral load (the level of HIV in the blood) is probably most effectively reduced by giving patients anti-HIV drugs which affect the virus at various stages of development. Changing the medications may enhance the results of treatment.
NCT00001083 ↗ Comparison of New Anti-HIV Drug Combinations in HIV-Infected Children Who Have Taken Anti-HIV Drugs Completed National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Phase 2 1969-12-31 For PRAM-1: To evaluate zidovudine (ZDV) + lamivudine (3TC) vs. stavudine (d4T) + ritonavir vs. ZDV + 3TC + ritonavir with respect to the change in plasma HIV-1 RNA copy number from baseline to 48 weeks [AS PER AMENDMENT 1/5/98: 72 weeks; AS PER AMENDMENT 7/17/98: 48 weeks] in stable HIV-infected children with >= 16 weeks of prior continuous antiretroviral therapy. To evaluate the safety and tolerance of ZDV + 3TC vs. d4T + ritonavir vs. ZDV + 3TC + ritonavir based upon laboratory and clinical toxicities. AS PER AMENDMENT 10/20/97: For PRAM-1, Step 2: To evaluate d4T + nevirapine + ritonavir with respect to change in plasma HIV-1 RNA copy number from baseline to 48 weeks in children who have received at least 12 weeks of therapy on the PRAM-1 ZDV/3TC arm and have over 10,000 viral copies at weeks 12, 24, or 36. To evaluate the safety and tolerance of d4T + nevirapine + ritonavir based upon laboratory and clinical toxicities. [AS PER AMENDMENT 10/23/98: To evaluate safety and tolerance of a switch from d4T + ritonavir vs. ZDV + 3TC + ritonavir to d4T + indinavir vs. ZDV + 3TC + indinavir in stable, HIV-infected children with RNA values = 10,000 the opportunity to change to a novel therapeutic regimen (d4T + nevirapine + ritonavir).
NCT00001085 ↗ A Study of 141W94 Used Alone or in Combination With Zidovudine Plus 3TC in HIV-Infected Patients Completed National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Phase 2 1969-12-31 To determine the proportion of patients whose plasma HIV-1 RNA level remains below a detectable level (less than 500/ml) after 24 weeks of study therapy with either 141W94 monotherapy or 141W94 plus zidovudine (ZDV) and lamivudine (3TC). To determine the safety and tolerability of 141W94 monotherapy and the combination of 141W94 plus 3TC in patients with HIV infection. Although dramatic inhibition of HIV-1 replication is achieved with ritonavir or indinavir monotherapy, in both cases maximum suppression required combination treatment together with nucleoside analog RT inhibitors. This study tests the hypothesis that monotherapy with 141W94 doses that result in Cmin levels far in excess of the IC90 corrected for plasma protein binding for HIV-1 can achieve the same virologic and immunologic effects in terms of magnitude and durability, as has been observed with combinations of other protease inhibitors plus nucleoside analogs.
NCT00001095 ↗ A Study of Three Anti-HIV Drug Combinations in Patients Who Have Taken Amprenavir Completed National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Phase 2 1969-12-31 To determine the proportion of patients treated with amprenavir, zidovudine (ZDV), stavudine (D4T) and lamivudine (3TC) whose HIV-1 RNA level remains below the level of detection during 96 weeks of therapy. To determine the proportion of patients treated with indinavir (IDV), nevirapine (NVP), 3TC, and d4T whose HIV-1 RNA level decreases and then remains below the level of detection, during the 96-week therapy period. To determine the viral effects, safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of amprenavir in combination with zidovudine, stavudine, and lamivudine. [AS PER AMENDMENT 2/27/98: To determine the proportion of patients with undetectable plasma HIV RNA, by treatment and baseline RNA cohort (either detectable or undetectable). To determine the durability of these regimens by estimating the distribution of time to loss of virologic suppression (or equivalently, time to virologic failure), by treatment and baseline RNA cohort.] This study allows patients who have successfully participated in ACTG 347 or other trials involving amprenavir to continue treatment with amprenavir, ZDV, d4T, and 3TC. Additionally, this study provides patients whose HIV-1 RNA was not reduced to undetectable levels or who had a significant increase in plasma levels ("treatment failures") the opportunity to change to a potentially more active regimen that includes indinavir, nevirapine, lamivudine, and stavudine.
NCT00001644 ↗ Use of Combined Antiretroviral Therapy to Determine Sites of Persistent HIV Infection Completed National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Phase 1 1997-03-03 This study will try to define how and where HIV infection persists in the body by determining: 1) if there are cells where HIV can live for long periods of time without being seen and destroyed by the immune system; 2) if there are sites where anti-HIV drugs cannot penetrate enough to stop new HIV replication; and 3) if HIV in certain lymph nodes can remain infectious for prolonged periods of time. It will also explore whether immune system damage caused by HIV can be repaired after new virus replication is stopped with treatment. HIV-infected patients 18 years of age and older may be eligible for this study, which will include three groups as follows. Candidates will be screened with a medical history, physical examination, blood and urine tests and possibly chest X-ray and electrocardiogram. Participants will be divided into three groups according to CD4 count levels: > 500 cells/microliter of blood; between 300 and 500 cells/microliter, and < 300 cells/microliter of blood. All participants will be treated with a combination of four antiretroviral drugs: indinavir, zidovudine, lamivudine and nevirapine. (Exceptions to this regimen may be made in certain circumstances for patients who cannot tolerate one of the four drugs.) In addition, they will undergo the following procedures: Blood tests - Blood tests will be done at screening and at study entry to evaluate the patient's health status and measure CD4 T cell count and plasma HIV levels; at the beginning of treatment to look for drug-related side effects; and during the course of the study to evaluate drug effectiveness in inhibiting HIV replication; CD4 T cell levels and function. Lymph node biopsy - Lymph node biopsies are done under local anesthesia. A small incision is made, the node is removed, and the incision is closed with stitches. Up to two nodes may be removed during each procedure. Patients with CD4 counts greater than 500 cells/microliter of blood and those with counts less than 300 cells/microliter will have three lymph node biopsies in order to 1) assess the effectiveness of therapy in inhibiting HIV replication in the nodes (the major site of replication); 2) determine how long HIV-infected cells may persist in the nodes after new replication is stopped by therapy; and 3) determine if immune damage caused by HIV can be repaired when virus replication is stopped. Lymph node biopsy in patients with counts between 300 and 500 cells/microliter of blood is required only at baseline, although follow-up biopsies are encouraged. Leukapheresis - In this procedure, whole blood is collected through a needle placed in an arm vein. The blood circulates through a cell separator machine where the white cells are removed and collected. The rest of the blood is returned to the body, either through the same needle used to draw the blood or through a second needle placed in the other arm. The collected white cells are used for special studies of the level and function of T cells before and after drug treatment. Patients with CD4 counts > 500 cells/microliter and < 300 cells/microliter will undergo leukapheresis up to four times - at study entry and about 2, 6 and 12 months after starting antiretroviral therapy. Patients with CD4 counts between 300 and 500 cells/microliter will have this procedure either at study entry and 6 and 12 weeks after initiation therapy, or on the same schedule as the other patients.
>Trial ID >Title >Status >Phase >Start Date >Summary

Clinical Trial Conditions for LAMIVUDINE, NEVIRAPINE AND ZIDOVUDINE

Condition Name

Condition Name for LAMIVUDINE, NEVIRAPINE AND ZIDOVUDINE
Intervention Trials
HIV Infections 29
HIV 8
HIV Infection 2
NVP Plasma Level 1
[disabled in preview] 1
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Condition MeSH

Condition MeSH for LAMIVUDINE, NEVIRAPINE AND ZIDOVUDINE
Intervention Trials
HIV Infections 32
Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome 7
Infections 6
Infection 5
[disabled in preview] 1
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Clinical Trial Locations for LAMIVUDINE, NEVIRAPINE AND ZIDOVUDINE

Trials by Country

Trials by Country for LAMIVUDINE, NEVIRAPINE AND ZIDOVUDINE
Location Trials
United States 132
South Africa 15
Thailand 10
India 9
Canada 7
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Trials by US State

Trials by US State for LAMIVUDINE, NEVIRAPINE AND ZIDOVUDINE
Location Trials
California 10
Florida 8
New York 8
Illinois 7
Texas 7
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Clinical Trial Progress for LAMIVUDINE, NEVIRAPINE AND ZIDOVUDINE

Clinical Trial Phase

Clinical Trial Phase for LAMIVUDINE, NEVIRAPINE AND ZIDOVUDINE
Clinical Trial Phase Trials
Phase 4 9
Phase 3 14
Phase 2/Phase 3 3
[disabled in preview] 15
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Clinical Trial Status

Clinical Trial Status for LAMIVUDINE, NEVIRAPINE AND ZIDOVUDINE
Clinical Trial Phase Trials
Completed 39
Unknown status 3
Terminated 2
[disabled in preview] 1
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Clinical Trial Sponsors for LAMIVUDINE, NEVIRAPINE AND ZIDOVUDINE

Sponsor Name

Sponsor Name for LAMIVUDINE, NEVIRAPINE AND ZIDOVUDINE
Sponsor Trials
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) 17
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) 9
Boehringer Ingelheim 4
[disabled in preview] 8
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Sponsor Type

Sponsor Type for LAMIVUDINE, NEVIRAPINE AND ZIDOVUDINE
Sponsor Trials
Other 55
NIH 28
Industry 13
[disabled in preview] 2
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial
Last updated: July 28, 2026

Lamivudine, Nevirapine and Zidovudine clinical trials update, market outlook, and exclusivity-driven generic risk

Lamivudine, nevirapine and zidovudine are off-patent antiretroviral components used in HIV treatment, typically in fixed-dose or combination regimens (historically as triple therapy). Current market dynamics are driven less by patent exclusivity and more by guideline preference shifts toward dolutegravir-based and other modern backbones, plus continued demand in settings where older NRTI NNRTI combinations remain on formularies.

No complete, defensible patent or Orange Book-style exclusivity timeline can be produced from the information provided in this prompt alone, and no reliable, source-cited “clinical trials update” for this exact 3-drug combination can be generated without specific trial identifiers, indications (adult vs pediatric, first-line vs switch), or geography.

What clinical trials exist for lamivudine, nevirapine, and zidovudine combinations?

A precise “clinical trials update” requires identifying which exact regimen is being tracked and where (e.g., specific fixed-dose combinations vs co-administered generics), because most published evidence historically evaluated these drugs as parts of broader ART strategies rather than a single, uniquely defined product.

Which endpoints did older lamivudine + nevirapine + zidovudine trials measure?

Typical endpoints in this regimen class include:

  • HIV RNA suppression rate at defined weeks (commonly 24, 48, 72)
  • CD4 count change
  • Virologic failure and resistance emergence (M184V associated with lamivudine; NNRTI resistance mutations such as K103N for nevirapine)
  • Safety and tolerability, including:
    • zidovudine-associated anemia and neutropenia
    • nevirapine-associated hepatotoxicity and rash
    • lactic acidosis risk (rare but clinically important with older NRTIs)

Why do trials data for these three drugs stay “stale” relative to modern ART?

Most new HIV development has moved to newer backbone regimens due to:

  • stronger efficacy and resistance profiles
  • better tolerability and dosing simplicity
  • reduced reliance on nevirapine due to safety monitoring burden in many settings

Where is the demand concentrated for lamivudine, nevirapine, and zidovudine?

Demand is generally strongest where older ART regimens are still used due to:

  • procurement contracts and existing supply chains
  • clinician familiarity
  • guideline timelines and national formulary inertia
  • budget sensitivity where newer regimens are not yet fully adopted

Adult first-line vs pediatric use: does the regimen persist?

Persistence is usually highest in:

  • pediatric or maternal-child program contexts when older pediatric formulations and dosing experience exist
  • treatment-experienced patients in constrained settings where regimen switches are slow

What formularies keep nevirapine relevant?

Nevirapine remains on some national or program formularies depending on:

  • maternal eligibility considerations
  • drug supply continuity
  • monitored risk tolerance and access to liver function testing

How big is the market for lamivudine + nevirapine + zidovudine, and what share is driven by which geography?

A rigorous market analysis needs product-level identification (brand, strength, dosage form, fixed-dose vs co-pack), plus IMS/GlobalData-style segmentation. Without those specifics, only structural market logic can be stated:

  • The overall market for the three active ingredients is dominated by generic competition.
  • Nevirapine and zidovudine are typically the limiting factors in uptake because many countries have moved toward regimens without NNRTI components like nevirapine.
  • Where used, demand tends to be institutional (public sector tenders and donor procurement).

What drives price and volume?

  • Tender-driven pricing
  • Shelf-life and quality system compliance requirements
  • Local registration status and supply reliability
  • Competition from alternative NRTI backbones (e.g., lamivudine with tenofovir and newer NNRTIs or INSTIs)

When does generic competition intensify for lamivudine, nevirapine, and zidovudine?

For established ART actives, “intensification” is typically already past for most mature jurisdictions because:

  • original compound patents have largely expired
  • multiple generic entrants have already secured access
  • remaining exclusivity is often limited to specific salts, fixed-dose combinations, or narrow manufacturing/process improvements rather than the core actives

What patent categories are still relevant even when the actives are off-patent?

Even for older products, litigation and exclusivity can attach to:

  • fixed-dose combination patents (specific stoichiometry and formulation)
  • pediatric formulation suitability
  • manufacturing process improvements
  • use claims (less common for these mature actives)

What generic entry risks exist for lamivudine, nevirapine, and zidovudine in the FDA and Europe?

Lamivudine, nevirapine, and zidovudine have extensive generic availability, and regulatory risk is usually operational (quality, bioequivalence, supply) rather than exclusivity.

US entry mechanics: ANDA risk profile

If an FDA reference product is still listed in the Orange Book, generic filing risk hinges on:

  • listed patents for the specific dosage form and strength
  • whether there are any unexpired patents tied to that formulation

For many older HIV regimens, a generic can already rely on an ANDA pathway without Paragraph IV leverage because patents are expired.

EU entry: reliance on generic data packages and national variations

In Europe, availability is driven by:

  • national marketing authorizations
  • variations in dossier acceptance and quality standards
  • historical tender usage that can lock in supply incumbents

What formulation patents protect lamivudine + nevirapine + zidovudine?

Formulation IP tends to be narrow for mature actives. The only meaningful protection, where it exists, is typically:

  • fixed-dose combination tablets/capsules with specific excipients and release characteristics
  • stability and manufacturing process claims

A formulation protection map cannot be produced from the current prompt because no product identifiers (brand, dosage form, manufacturer) are provided.

How does this regimen compare with dolutegravir-based combinations on efficacy, safety, and adoption?

From a market standpoint, comparison is decisive:

  • Efficacy: modern INSTI regimens generally show stronger virologic suppression durability and better resistance outcomes.
  • Safety: nevirapine monitoring (liver and rash risk) increases operational friction relative to newer options.
  • Dosing and adherence: modern single-tablet strategies reduce pill burden, which impacts adherence and program preference.

This shifts adoption away from lamivudine + nevirapine + zidovudine in many guideline pathways, shrinking long-run demand growth even if absolute usage continues in some constrained settings.

What patent litigation affects lamivudine, nevirapine, and zidovudine?

No litigation dataset can be provided without:

  • the specific branded reference product
  • the relevant jurisdictions
  • case captions or docket numbers

For mature ART actives, litigation typically centers on generic exclusivity windows for specific formulation/combination products rather than on base-compound claims.

Clinical trial pipeline: is there ongoing development specifically combining these three actives?

Development pipelines have largely moved toward:

  • new backbones (INSTIs, NNRTIs with improved safety)
  • long-acting delivery (where applicable)
  • fixed-dose combinations with improved adherence profiles
  • simplification strategies in pediatrics and pregnancy

A credible “pipeline update” for this exact three-active combination requires trial registries filtered to the exact regimen name and route.

Market projection: how will demand evolve over the next 3 to 7 years?

A directional projection for a mature, generic-dominated ART combination is typically:

  • low to flat revenue growth for the actives, driven by:
    • volume stability in legacy formularies
    • competitive pricing pressure
    • replacement by guideline-preferred regimens
  • declining relative share for nevirapine-containing regimens as programs adopt safer and simpler backbones

Key drivers of the projection:

  • ART guideline updates in major procurement countries
  • donor and government procurement priorities
  • availability and pricing of newer regimens
  • ongoing need for older regimens in constrained settings

What revenue outcomes are most likely?

  • Generic pricing compresses margins.
  • Product-level differentiation shifts from patent exclusivity to:
    • supply continuity
    • regulatory approvals
    • quality and pharmacovigilance performance

Key Takeaways

  • Lamivudine, nevirapine, and zidovudine are mature HIV antiretrovirals used in legacy regimens; the market is generic-dominated and guided by procurement and guideline adoption rather than active patent-led exclusivity.
  • A specific “clinical trials update” for the exact three-drug combination cannot be validated from the prompt because regimen identity, indication, and trial sources are unspecified.
  • Long-run demand is structurally constrained by replacement of nevirapine-based regimens with modern, better-tolerated backbones, though usage persists in settings with formularies and supply constraints.

FAQs

  1. Is lamivudine + nevirapine + zidovudine still recommended for HIV first-line therapy?
  2. Do fixed-dose combination tablets of lamivudine, nevirapine, and zidovudine have different market dynamics than co-administered generics?
  3. What are the main safety monitoring issues for nevirapine-based regimens in routine practice?
  4. How does resistance testing influence switching away from lamivudine and nevirapine when virologic failure occurs?
  5. What procurement and tender dynamics most affect pricing for generic zidovudine and nevirapine products?

References

  1. No sources cited because the prompt does not include regimen-specific trial identifiers, product identifiers, regulatory listings, or jurisdictions required to produce a complete and accurate, cited clinical and market analysis.

More… ↓

⤷  Start Trial

Make Better Decisions: Try a trial or see plans & pricing

Drugs may be covered by multiple patents or regulatory protections. All trademarks and applicant names are the property of their respective owners or licensors. Although great care is taken in the proper and correct provision of this service, thinkBiotech LLC does not accept any responsibility for possible consequences of errors or omissions in the provided data. The data presented herein is for information purposes only. There is no warranty that the data contained herein is error free. We do not provide individual investment advice. This service is not registered with any financial regulatory agency. The information we publish is educational only and based on our opinions plus our models. By using DrugPatentWatch you acknowledge that we do not provide personalized recommendations or advice. thinkBiotech performs no independent verification of facts as provided by public sources nor are attempts made to provide legal or investing advice. Any reliance on data provided herein is done solely at the discretion of the user. Users of this service are advised to seek professional advice and independent confirmation before considering acting on any of the provided information. thinkBiotech LLC reserves the right to amend, extend or withdraw any part or all of the offered service without notice.