➤ Get the DrugPatentWatch Daily Briefing

Get Daily Updates on Generic Entry, Litigation, Biosimilars, and more …

Serving leading biopharmaceutical companies globally:

Merck
McKinsey
Boehringer Ingelheim
Baxter
McKesson
Harvard Business School

Last Updated: August 10, 2020

DrugPatentWatch Database Preview

CLINICAL TRIALS PROFILE FOR VEMLIDY

➤ Get the DrugPatentWatch Daily Briefing
» See Plans and Pricing

« Back to Dashboard

All Clinical Trials for Vemlidy

Trial ID Title Status Sponsor Phase Start Date Summary
NCT03241641 Switching From TDF to TAF vs. Maintaining TDF in Chronic Hepatitis B With Resistance to Adefovir or Entecavir. Recruiting Konkuk University Medical Center Phase 4 2017-10-26 Treatment of CHB patients with genotypic resistance to NUCs has been problematic due to the lack of data from randomized trials. Recently, two randomized trials comparing the efficacy of TDF monotherapy versus TDF and ETV combination therapy in CHB patients with documented genotypic resistance to adefovir (ADV) or ETV demonstrated TDF monotherapy was not statistically different in viral suppression at week 48 of treatment.1,2 The extension study based on the above two trials merged study subjects from these trials with changing from TDF and ETV combination group to TDF monotherapy to evaluate long-term efficacy and safety of TDF monotherapy for multidrug-resistant patients. At the time of merging of 192 subjects, by intention-to-treat analysis, 66.3% of TDF group and 68.0% of TDF-ETV group had virological response as determined by serum HBV DNA <15 IU/mL. (in press) Three year long-term follow up study showed that the proportion of virologic suppression increased to 76.8% and 72.2% in TDF-TDF and TDF/TDF-ETV groups, respectively( P=0.46). (in press) TAF, a novel prodrug of tenofovir was developed to have greater stability in plasma than TDF, thereby enabling more efficient delivery of the active metabolite to target cells at a substantially lower dose. The reduced systemic exposure of tenofovir offers the potential for an improved safety profile compared to TDF a benefit that demonstrated in a recent clinical trial in patients with HIV infection. In a recent double-blind randomized phase 3 noninferiority trial with 873 treatment naive patients who were positive for HBeAg, the proportion of patients receiving TAF who had HBV DNA <29 IU/mL at week 48 was 64%, which was non-inferior to the rate of 67% in patients receiving TDF (P=0.25).3 In the safety profile, TAF group had significantly smaller decrease in BMD than TDF group in the hip and spine, as well as significantly smaller increases in serum creatinine at week 48.3 For treatment naive HBeAg negative patients, a recent study with 425 subjects applied the same methodology and showed noninferiority in efficacy of TAF compared to TDF at week 48.4 Considering noninferiority in efficacy and superior bone and renal safety from TAF, TAF might be considered preferred choice of NUC instead of TDF. However, it is still unknown whether TAF would show similar efficacy and safety profile in patients with multidrug-resistant CHB.
NCT03241641 Switching From TDF to TAF vs. Maintaining TDF in Chronic Hepatitis B With Resistance to Adefovir or Entecavir. Recruiting Korea University Guro Hospital Phase 4 2017-10-26 Treatment of CHB patients with genotypic resistance to NUCs has been problematic due to the lack of data from randomized trials. Recently, two randomized trials comparing the efficacy of TDF monotherapy versus TDF and ETV combination therapy in CHB patients with documented genotypic resistance to adefovir (ADV) or ETV demonstrated TDF monotherapy was not statistically different in viral suppression at week 48 of treatment.1,2 The extension study based on the above two trials merged study subjects from these trials with changing from TDF and ETV combination group to TDF monotherapy to evaluate long-term efficacy and safety of TDF monotherapy for multidrug-resistant patients. At the time of merging of 192 subjects, by intention-to-treat analysis, 66.3% of TDF group and 68.0% of TDF-ETV group had virological response as determined by serum HBV DNA <15 IU/mL. (in press) Three year long-term follow up study showed that the proportion of virologic suppression increased to 76.8% and 72.2% in TDF-TDF and TDF/TDF-ETV groups, respectively( P=0.46). (in press) TAF, a novel prodrug of tenofovir was developed to have greater stability in plasma than TDF, thereby enabling more efficient delivery of the active metabolite to target cells at a substantially lower dose. The reduced systemic exposure of tenofovir offers the potential for an improved safety profile compared to TDF a benefit that demonstrated in a recent clinical trial in patients with HIV infection. In a recent double-blind randomized phase 3 noninferiority trial with 873 treatment naive patients who were positive for HBeAg, the proportion of patients receiving TAF who had HBV DNA <29 IU/mL at week 48 was 64%, which was non-inferior to the rate of 67% in patients receiving TDF (P=0.25).3 In the safety profile, TAF group had significantly smaller decrease in BMD than TDF group in the hip and spine, as well as significantly smaller increases in serum creatinine at week 48.3 For treatment naive HBeAg negative patients, a recent study with 425 subjects applied the same methodology and showed noninferiority in efficacy of TAF compared to TDF at week 48.4 Considering noninferiority in efficacy and superior bone and renal safety from TAF, TAF might be considered preferred choice of NUC instead of TDF. However, it is still unknown whether TAF would show similar efficacy and safety profile in patients with multidrug-resistant CHB.
NCT03241641 Switching From TDF to TAF vs. Maintaining TDF in Chronic Hepatitis B With Resistance to Adefovir or Entecavir. Recruiting Samsung Medical Center Phase 4 2017-10-26 Treatment of CHB patients with genotypic resistance to NUCs has been problematic due to the lack of data from randomized trials. Recently, two randomized trials comparing the efficacy of TDF monotherapy versus TDF and ETV combination therapy in CHB patients with documented genotypic resistance to adefovir (ADV) or ETV demonstrated TDF monotherapy was not statistically different in viral suppression at week 48 of treatment.1,2 The extension study based on the above two trials merged study subjects from these trials with changing from TDF and ETV combination group to TDF monotherapy to evaluate long-term efficacy and safety of TDF monotherapy for multidrug-resistant patients. At the time of merging of 192 subjects, by intention-to-treat analysis, 66.3% of TDF group and 68.0% of TDF-ETV group had virological response as determined by serum HBV DNA <15 IU/mL. (in press) Three year long-term follow up study showed that the proportion of virologic suppression increased to 76.8% and 72.2% in TDF-TDF and TDF/TDF-ETV groups, respectively( P=0.46). (in press) TAF, a novel prodrug of tenofovir was developed to have greater stability in plasma than TDF, thereby enabling more efficient delivery of the active metabolite to target cells at a substantially lower dose. The reduced systemic exposure of tenofovir offers the potential for an improved safety profile compared to TDF a benefit that demonstrated in a recent clinical trial in patients with HIV infection. In a recent double-blind randomized phase 3 noninferiority trial with 873 treatment naive patients who were positive for HBeAg, the proportion of patients receiving TAF who had HBV DNA <29 IU/mL at week 48 was 64%, which was non-inferior to the rate of 67% in patients receiving TDF (P=0.25).3 In the safety profile, TAF group had significantly smaller decrease in BMD than TDF group in the hip and spine, as well as significantly smaller increases in serum creatinine at week 48.3 For treatment naive HBeAg negative patients, a recent study with 425 subjects applied the same methodology and showed noninferiority in efficacy of TAF compared to TDF at week 48.4 Considering noninferiority in efficacy and superior bone and renal safety from TAF, TAF might be considered preferred choice of NUC instead of TDF. However, it is still unknown whether TAF would show similar efficacy and safety profile in patients with multidrug-resistant CHB.
NCT03241641 Switching From TDF to TAF vs. Maintaining TDF in Chronic Hepatitis B With Resistance to Adefovir or Entecavir. Recruiting Seoul National University Hospital Phase 4 2017-10-26 Treatment of CHB patients with genotypic resistance to NUCs has been problematic due to the lack of data from randomized trials. Recently, two randomized trials comparing the efficacy of TDF monotherapy versus TDF and ETV combination therapy in CHB patients with documented genotypic resistance to adefovir (ADV) or ETV demonstrated TDF monotherapy was not statistically different in viral suppression at week 48 of treatment.1,2 The extension study based on the above two trials merged study subjects from these trials with changing from TDF and ETV combination group to TDF monotherapy to evaluate long-term efficacy and safety of TDF monotherapy for multidrug-resistant patients. At the time of merging of 192 subjects, by intention-to-treat analysis, 66.3% of TDF group and 68.0% of TDF-ETV group had virological response as determined by serum HBV DNA <15 IU/mL. (in press) Three year long-term follow up study showed that the proportion of virologic suppression increased to 76.8% and 72.2% in TDF-TDF and TDF/TDF-ETV groups, respectively( P=0.46). (in press) TAF, a novel prodrug of tenofovir was developed to have greater stability in plasma than TDF, thereby enabling more efficient delivery of the active metabolite to target cells at a substantially lower dose. The reduced systemic exposure of tenofovir offers the potential for an improved safety profile compared to TDF a benefit that demonstrated in a recent clinical trial in patients with HIV infection. In a recent double-blind randomized phase 3 noninferiority trial with 873 treatment naive patients who were positive for HBeAg, the proportion of patients receiving TAF who had HBV DNA <29 IU/mL at week 48 was 64%, which was non-inferior to the rate of 67% in patients receiving TDF (P=0.25).3 In the safety profile, TAF group had significantly smaller decrease in BMD than TDF group in the hip and spine, as well as significantly smaller increases in serum creatinine at week 48.3 For treatment naive HBeAg negative patients, a recent study with 425 subjects applied the same methodology and showed noninferiority in efficacy of TAF compared to TDF at week 48.4 Considering noninferiority in efficacy and superior bone and renal safety from TAF, TAF might be considered preferred choice of NUC instead of TDF. However, it is still unknown whether TAF would show similar efficacy and safety profile in patients with multidrug-resistant CHB.
NCT03241641 Switching From TDF to TAF vs. Maintaining TDF in Chronic Hepatitis B With Resistance to Adefovir or Entecavir. Recruiting Young-Suk Lim Phase 4 2017-10-26 Treatment of CHB patients with genotypic resistance to NUCs has been problematic due to the lack of data from randomized trials. Recently, two randomized trials comparing the efficacy of TDF monotherapy versus TDF and ETV combination therapy in CHB patients with documented genotypic resistance to adefovir (ADV) or ETV demonstrated TDF monotherapy was not statistically different in viral suppression at week 48 of treatment.1,2 The extension study based on the above two trials merged study subjects from these trials with changing from TDF and ETV combination group to TDF monotherapy to evaluate long-term efficacy and safety of TDF monotherapy for multidrug-resistant patients. At the time of merging of 192 subjects, by intention-to-treat analysis, 66.3% of TDF group and 68.0% of TDF-ETV group had virological response as determined by serum HBV DNA <15 IU/mL. (in press) Three year long-term follow up study showed that the proportion of virologic suppression increased to 76.8% and 72.2% in TDF-TDF and TDF/TDF-ETV groups, respectively( P=0.46). (in press) TAF, a novel prodrug of tenofovir was developed to have greater stability in plasma than TDF, thereby enabling more efficient delivery of the active metabolite to target cells at a substantially lower dose. The reduced systemic exposure of tenofovir offers the potential for an improved safety profile compared to TDF a benefit that demonstrated in a recent clinical trial in patients with HIV infection. In a recent double-blind randomized phase 3 noninferiority trial with 873 treatment naive patients who were positive for HBeAg, the proportion of patients receiving TAF who had HBV DNA <29 IU/mL at week 48 was 64%, which was non-inferior to the rate of 67% in patients receiving TDF (P=0.25).3 In the safety profile, TAF group had significantly smaller decrease in BMD than TDF group in the hip and spine, as well as significantly smaller increases in serum creatinine at week 48.3 For treatment naive HBeAg negative patients, a recent study with 425 subjects applied the same methodology and showed noninferiority in efficacy of TAF compared to TDF at week 48.4 Considering noninferiority in efficacy and superior bone and renal safety from TAF, TAF might be considered preferred choice of NUC instead of TDF. However, it is still unknown whether TAF would show similar efficacy and safety profile in patients with multidrug-resistant CHB.
>Trial ID >Title >Status >Phase >Start Date >Summary

Clinical Trial Conditions for Vemlidy

Condition Name

Condition Name for Vemlidy
Intervention Trials
Hepatitis B 4
Chronic Hepatitis b 3
Hepatitis B, Chronic 3
Viral Hepatitis 1
[disabled in preview] 0
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Export unavailable in trial.
Subscribe for complete access.

Condition MeSH

Condition MeSH for Vemlidy
Intervention Trials
Hepatitis B 10
Hepatitis 10
Hepatitis A 8
Hepatitis B, Chronic 7
[disabled in preview] 0
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Export unavailable in trial.
Subscribe for complete access.

Clinical Trial Locations for Vemlidy

Trials by Country

Trials by Country for Vemlidy
Location Trials
China 14
Korea, Republic of 3
Taiwan 2
Hong Kong 2
Japan 1
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Export unavailable in trial.
Subscribe for complete access.

Trials by US State

Trials by US State for Vemlidy
Location Trials
California 1
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Export unavailable in trial.
Subscribe for complete access.

Clinical Trial Progress for Vemlidy

Clinical Trial Phase

Clinical Trial Phase for Vemlidy
Clinical Trial Phase Trials
Phase 4 5
Phase 2 1
N/A 4
[disabled in preview] 0
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Export unavailable in trial.
Subscribe for complete access.

Clinical Trial Status

Clinical Trial Status for Vemlidy
Clinical Trial Phase Trials
Recruiting 7
Not yet recruiting 3
[disabled in preview] 0
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Export unavailable in trial.
Subscribe for complete access.

Clinical Trial Sponsors for Vemlidy

Sponsor Name

Sponsor Name for Vemlidy
Sponsor Trials
Third Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University 4
Young-Suk Lim 2
Seoul National University Hospital 2
[disabled in preview] 3
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Export unavailable in trial.
Subscribe for complete access.

Sponsor Type

Sponsor Type for Vemlidy
Sponsor Trials
Other 17
Industry 4
[disabled in preview] 0
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Export unavailable in trial.
Subscribe for complete access.

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

Serving leading biopharmaceutical companies globally:

Express Scripts
Johnson and Johnson
McKinsey
Dow
Harvard Business School
Colorcon

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. 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.