CLINICAL TRIALS PROFILE FOR ABACAVIR SULFATE

All Clinical Trials for abacavir sulfate

Trial ID	Title	Status	Sponsor	Phase	Start Date	Summary
NCT00000864 ↗	A Study to Test the Safety, Tolerance, and Metabolism of Abacavir (1592U89, ABC) With Standard Zidovudine (ZDV) Therapy in Newborn Infants Born to HIV-1 Infected Women	Completed	Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)	Phase 1	1969-12-31	The purpose of this study is to determine the safety, tolerance, and metabolism of single-dose and multiple-dose abacavir (ABC) in HIV-exposed infants receiving standard postnatal treatment with zidovudine (ZDV). This study also evaluates the correct dosages of ABC to be used in future studies. Early aggressive therapy may be the best chance to slow disease progression in infants who may have been infected with HIV by their mothers. Early HIV suppression may significantly reduce viral levels and allow for restoration of the immune system, providing improved control over HIV infection. Therefore, it is important that the safety and tolerance of ABC in combination with ZDV be examined as potential early therapy in newborn and young infants.
NCT00000864 ↗	A Study to Test the Safety, Tolerance, and Metabolism of Abacavir (1592U89, ABC) With Standard Zidovudine (ZDV) Therapy in Newborn Infants Born to HIV-1 Infected Women	Completed	National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)	Phase 1	1969-12-31	The purpose of this study is to determine the safety, tolerance, and metabolism of single-dose and multiple-dose abacavir (ABC) in HIV-exposed infants receiving standard postnatal treatment with zidovudine (ZDV). This study also evaluates the correct dosages of ABC to be used in future studies. Early aggressive therapy may be the best chance to slow disease progression in infants who may have been infected with HIV by their mothers. Early HIV suppression may significantly reduce viral levels and allow for restoration of the immune system, providing improved control over HIV infection. Therefore, it is important that the safety and tolerance of ABC in combination with ZDV be examined as potential early therapy in newborn and young infants.
NCT00000865 ↗	The Safety and Effects of 1592U89 Used Alone or in Combination With Other Anti-HIV Drugs in HIV-Infected Infants and Children	Completed	National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)	Phase 1	1969-12-31	To assess the steady state pharmacokinetic features, tolerance, and safety of orally administered 1592U89, given alone or in combination with other antiretroviral medications, in HIV infected infants and children. To establish doses of 1592U89 appropriate for future pediatric Phase II/III clinical trials. On the basis of the preclinical and clinical studies, 1592U89 appears to be a promising agent for treatment of HIV infection in children, either as an alternative to currently employed agents, or in combination therapy regimens. A liquid formulation of the drug is available; thus concurrent development of 1592U89 for children and adults is possible.
NCT00000872 ↗	Treatment With Combinations of Several Antiviral Drugs in Infants and Young Children With HIV Infection	Completed	Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)	Phase 2	1969-12-31	This trial tests the safety and effectiveness of the early use of combinations of anti-HIV drugs in HIV-infected infants and young children in an effort to block virus growth and preserve normal immune functions. Various anti-HIV drug combinations need to be tested in order to find the best way to treat infants and children who have been infected with HIV during birth.
NCT00000872 ↗	Treatment With Combinations of Several Antiviral Drugs in Infants and Young Children With HIV Infection	Completed	National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)	Phase 2	1969-12-31	This trial tests the safety and effectiveness of the early use of combinations of anti-HIV drugs in HIV-infected infants and young children in an effort to block virus growth and preserve normal immune functions. Various anti-HIV drug combinations need to be tested in order to find the best way to treat infants and children who have been infected with HIV during birth.
NCT00000885 ↗	Treatment Success and Failure in HIV-Infected Subjects Receiving Indinavir in Combination With Nucleoside Analogs: A Rollover Study for ACTG 320	Completed	National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)	Phase 2	1969-12-31	Group A: To compare the time to confirmed virologic failure (2 consecutive plasma HIV-RNA concentrations of 500 copies/ml or more) between the treatment arms: abacavir (ABC) or placebo in combination with zidovudine (ZDV), lamivudine (3TC), and indinavir (IDV). To evaluate the safety and tolerability of these treatment arms. [AS PER AMENDMENT 06/16/99: To compare the time to confirmed treatment failure, permanent discontinuation of treatment, or death between the treatment arms.] [AS PER AMENDMENT 12/27/01: Groups B, C, and D completed follow-up on March 4, 1999. Therefore, only information pertinent to Group A is applicable.] Group B: To compare the proportion of patients who achieve plasma HIV-1 RNA concentrations below 500 copies/ml, as assessed by the standard Roche Amplicor assay at Week 16, or to compare the absolute changes in plasma HIV-1 RNA concentrations at Week 16 across the treatment arms: ABC or approved nucleoside analogs and nelfinavir (NFV) or placebo in combination with efavirenz (EFV) and adefovir dipivoxil. To compare the safety and tolerability of these treatment arms. Group C: To monitor plasma HIV-1 RNA trajectory over time and determine the time to a confirmed plasma HIV-1 RNA concentration above 2,000 copies/ml on 2 consecutive determinations for patients treated with ZDV or stavudine (d4T) plus 3TC and IDV. Group D: To evaluate plasma HIV-1 RNA responses at Weeks 16 and 48. To evaluate the safety and tolerability of the treatment arms: ABC, EFV, adefovir dipivoxil, and NFV. This study explores new treatment options for ACTG 320 enrollees (and, if needed, a limited number of non-ACTG 320 volunteers) who have been receiving ZDV (or d4T) plus 3TC and IDV and are currently exhibiting a range of virologic responses. By dividing the study into the corresponding, nonsequential cohorts (Groups A, B, C, D), different approaches to evaluating virologic success, i.e., undetectable plasma HIV-1 RNA levels, and virologic failure, i.e., plasma HIV-1 RNA levels of 500 copies/ml or more [AS PER AMENDMENT 12/27/01: 200 copies/ml or more], are explored while maintaining long-term follow-up of ACTG 320 patients. [AS PER AMENDMENT 12/27/01: Groups B, C, and D completed follow-up on March 4, 1999. Therefore, only information pertinent to Group A is applicable. This study will examine the question of whether intensification of therapy can prolong the virologic benefit in individuals whose plasma HIV-1 RNA concentrations have been below the limits of assay detection on ZDV (or d4T) plus 3TC plus IDV.]
NCT00000912 ↗	A Study on Amprenavir in Combination With Other Anti-HIV Drugs in HIV-Positive Patients	Completed	National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)	Phase 2	1969-12-31	The purpose of this study is to compare 4 different combinations of anti-HIV drugs and to determine the number of people whose HIV blood levels decrease to 200 copies/ml or less while on the treatment. This study evaluates the safety of these drug combinations, which include an experimental protease inhibitor (PI), amprenavir. Despite the success that many patients have had with PI treatment regimens, there is still a possibility that patients receiving PIs may continue to have high HIV blood levels. Because of this possibility, alternative drug combinations containing PIs are being studied. It appears that amprenavir, when taken with 3 or 4 other anti-HIV drugs, may be effective in patients with prior PI treatment experience.

Clinical Trial Conditions for abacavir sulfate

Condition Name

Condition Name for abacavir sulfate
Intervention	Trials
HIV Infections	59
Lipodystrophy	3
HIV	2
HIV Infection	2

Condition MeSH

Condition MeSH for abacavir sulfate
Intervention	Trials
HIV Infections	63
Infection	21
Infections	21
Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome	15

Clinical Trial Locations for abacavir sulfate

Trials by Country

Trials by Country for abacavir sulfate
Location	Trials
United States	499
Puerto Rico	11
Canada	10
Mexico	4
Australia	2

Trials by US State

Trials by US State for abacavir sulfate
Location	Trials
New York	42
California	38
North Carolina	33
Illinois	30
Florida	27

Clinical Trial Progress for abacavir sulfate

Clinical Trial Phase

Clinical Trial Phase for abacavir sulfate
Clinical Trial Phase	Trials
Phase 4	8
Phase 3	15
Phase 2	20

Clinical Trial Status

Clinical Trial Status for abacavir sulfate
Clinical Trial Phase	Trials
Completed	58
Unknown status	4
Withdrawn	2

Clinical Trial Sponsors for abacavir sulfate

Sponsor Name

Sponsor Name for abacavir sulfate
Sponsor	Trials
Glaxo Wellcome	30
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)	27
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)	5

Sponsor Type

Sponsor Type for abacavir sulfate
Sponsor	Trials
Industry	43
NIH	33
Other	6

Abacavir Sulfate Clinical Trials Update, Market Analysis, and Future Market Projections (2026-2031)

Last updated: July 27, 2026

Executive summary: Abacavir sulfate is a mature antiretroviral used in HIV combination therapy. The active market is driven by guideline-based prescribing in special clinical scenarios (HLA-B*5701-negative patients), first-line and switch use, and continued inclusion in combination fixed-dose regimens in multiple geographies. Near-term clinical-trial activity is light because abacavir is off-patent in most jurisdictions and trials increasingly target adherence, co-formulation, long-acting strategies, and safety monitoring rather than new drug-development pathways. Market growth is expected to be modest and volume-stable, with value supported by steady global ART scale-up, but constrained by generic penetration, regimen preference shifts toward once-daily integrase-based backbones, and contraindication screening requirements.

---

What clinical trials are underway for abacavir sulfate in 2026?

Short answer: Most ongoing studies around abacavir are not “brand new abacavir” pivotal programs. The current clinical-trials footprint is typically small-to-mid size and focused on (1) HIV regimen optimization, (2) switch strategies in virologically suppressed patients, (3) adherence and real-world effectiveness, and (4) safety surveillance with particular attention to hypersensitivity reactions and comorbidities.

What trial types dominate abacavir sulfate research

• Switch and simplification studies: Moving patients between combination regimens to reduce pill burden or maintain suppression.
• Adherence and persistence studies: Measuring outcomes associated with regimen simplification, including patient support and dispensing patterns.
• Safety and tolerability cohorts: Pharmacovigilance-type follow-ups assessing discontinuations, renal/metabolic signals, and treatment interruptions.
• Special populations: Pregnancy, older adults, coinfections, and comorbidity-focused observational or interventional studies.

Where abacavir trials are concentrated

• Studies track global ART programs where abacavir remains in formularies or where fixed-dose combinations are standard.
• Trial registries also show “supporting” studies in regions with high HIV burden where access and regimen availability drive study design more than novel pharmacology.

Operational implication: If the goal is to identify new competitive threat vectors, the signal to watch is not abacavir’s mechanism novelty, but trial activity around new combinations and comparative effectiveness against preferred integrase inhibitor regimens.

---

Has abacavir sulfate reached late-stage or pivotal trial status recently?

Short answer: No recent pattern suggests new abacavir-led pivotal registrations. The product is long established, and drug-development capital has largely moved to new classes, long-acting delivery, and combination strategies where abacavir is not the primary differentiator.

What counts as “late-stage” for a mature drug

• Trials that support new fixed-dose combinations or new dosing schedules in specific populations.
• Trials that support label expansions related to co-administered therapies or special-case populations.

Business takeaway: For licensing or investment decisions, abacavir is better framed as a regimen component with a predictable base of demand, not a growth driver from new trial breakthroughs.

---

What are the key efficacy and safety outcomes in abacavir clinical evidence used today?

Short answer: The dominant clinical reference set remains based on established efficacy of nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) regimens, with a central safety constraint tied to abacavir hypersensitivity reaction (HSR) risk.

Efficacy endpoints used in current practice

• Virologic suppression (HIV RNA reduction below clinically defined thresholds)
• Durability of suppression in switch cohorts
• Resistance patterns when regimen interruption or failure occurs

Safety endpoints that steer prescribing

• HSR incidence with strict *HLA-B5701 screening**
• Treatment discontinuation rates
• Metabolic and cardiovascular signals assessed in post-marketing cohorts
• Renal and bone safety in combination contexts

Regimen implication: Abacavir usage is algorithm-driven. HLA-B*5701 negativity is a gating factor; prescribers also weigh alternative NRTIs available in local formularies.

---

What patents protect abacavir sulfate and how strong is the remaining estate?

Short answer: In most jurisdictions, abacavir sulfate itself is off-patent, with remaining IP typically focused on formulations, fixed-dose combinations, process patents, and data exclusivity that has largely expired. The practical IP barrier is therefore more likely to be formulation-specific or combination-specific rather than abacavir molecule-level.

Common remaining IP pockets (where disputes often arise)

• Fixed-dose combination tablets (abacavir + lamivudine, and/or inclusion in multi-drug regimens)
• Crystalline form / polymorph claims (where relevant)
• Manufacturing processes (impurity control, milling, solvent system)
• Analytical methods and stability/handling specifications

How to assess “strength” for market access

• Look for Orange Book style listings in the US for combination products (not the standalone molecule) and for patent families tied to those combinations.
• Outside the US, focus on national phase filings for formulation/process claims.

Business lens: The market is structurally generic. IP strategy tends to be about defending specific combination products or branded formulations, not blocking generic abacavir entry at the molecule level.

---

What is the Orange Book status of abacavir sulfate and its combinations?

Short answer: Orange Book coverage is generally relevant for US-approved drug products (including combination fixed-dose products). Standalone abacavir products are rarely the target of new exclusivity fights; the US listing landscape is dominated by generic entries for older NRTIs and their combinations.

What to check for exclusivity and listed patents

• Active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) listing (abacavir sulfate)
• Product-level patents covering:
  • formulation/dosage form
  • method of manufacturing
  • sometimes use claims (less common in mature NRTI categories)

Practical view: For a commercial entrant, the key is identifying which combination product has the cleanest path and which has the narrowest patent thicket.

---

When does abacavir sulfate lose exclusivity and when can generics launch?

Short answer: For the molecule, exclusivity has long passed in most markets. Generic launch is typically limited by regulatory permissions for specific combination fixed-dose products and by any remaining product-specific patents or exclusivity windows for those combinations.

Exclusivity drivers for a mature NRTI

• Patent expiry for specific fixed-dose combinations
• Any remaining regulatory exclusivities for new indications or new product types (rare for abacavir now)
• Litigation and settlement outcomes if a generic sponsor files a paragraph IV challenge for a combination product

Market outcome: Launch timing is usually defined by (1) patent status on the combination product and (2) manufacturing and labeling readiness rather than any molecule-level novelty.

---

What generic entry risks exist for abacavir sulfate?

Short answer: Generic entry risk is typically low for abacavir as an API, but risk exists at the combination product level where formulation or process patents can still constrain product launch schedules.

Key risk factors

• Unexpired patents covering:
  • fixed-dose composition specifics
  • manufacturing impurities or stability specs
  • packaging/storage claims tied to a product
• Any active litigation involving paragraph IV filings for combination products

Commercial implication: Competitive dynamics depend more on which local combination tablet is targeted than on the abacavir molecule.

---

How does abacavir sulfate market performance compare with other NRTIs?

Short answer: Abacavir’s competitive position is shaped by guideline preferences for integrase inhibitor-based regimens and by the requirement for HLA-B*5701 screening. Versus other NRTIs, abacavir can still hold share where:

• integrase-backbone options incorporate NRTIs in standard sequences,
• fixed-dose availability matches payer formularies,
• and clinician preference or patient tolerability favors abacavir-based combinations.

Comparison dimensions that matter

• Payer formularies and reimbursement (varies widely by country)
• Regimen simplicity and fixed-dose availability
• Safety constraints compared to alternatives
• Supply chain and pricing in generic segments

---

What is the size of the global abacavir sulfate market and where is revenue concentrated?

Short answer: Revenue is concentrated in markets with sustained ART scale-up and where NRTI combination backbones remain in routine care. The global footprint is broad, but value is pressured by generic pricing. Abacavir continues to capture steady demand as part of combination therapy, with higher relative share in formularies that maintain abacavir-inclusive options.

Demand drivers

• Continued global HIV treatment coverage growth
• Switching behavior in stable virologic patients
• Continued manufacturing capacity of generic abacavir combinations
• Guideline adherence contingent on HLA-B*5701 negative status

Constraints on revenue growth

• Generic commoditization lowers price per patient-year
• Shift toward preferred NRTI backbones in some guideline pathways
• Screening and contraindication management adds workflow steps

---

What market projections for abacavir sulfate exist for 2026-2031?

Short answer: Projections typically point to low-to-mid single-digit growth in revenue at best, with volume stability and revenue supported by treatment persistence and population-level ART growth, but constrained by generic price declines and regimen substitution toward alternatives.

Projection framework used in mature ART

• Patient numbers under ART rise but are offset by:
  • generic erosion
  • shifting regimen standards
  • competitive substitution between NRTIs
• Abacavir value growth depends on:
  • continued inclusion in fixed-dose regimens
  • payer formularies
  • regional prescribing patterns

Base-case scenario (directional)

• Revenue: low growth (pricing down, demand steady)
• Volume: stable to modestly increasing aligned with ART coverage
• Competitive intensity: persistently high due to generic supply

Key sensitivities

• Guideline changes that reduce the role of abacavir-inclusive combinations
• Availability shifts to alternative NRTIs in fixed-dose regimens
• Policy changes in screening programs affecting access logistics

---

Which companies dominate abacavir sulfate supply and fixed-dose combination manufacturing?

Short answer: Generic manufacturers dominate the abacavir segment, with regional variation. The biggest competitive pressure comes from companies producing widely distributed fixed-dose NRTI combinations that benefit from scale manufacturing and established distribution networks.

Competitive landscape structure

• API and generic finished dose producers operate on cost and supply continuity.
• Fixed-dose combination suppliers compete through:
  • formulary access
  • tender wins
  • bioequivalence and stability performance
  • packaging and patient adherence considerations

Market outcome: Brand-level differentiation is minimal in most tender-driven geographies; winners compete on delivered cost, availability, and compliance performance.

---

What regulatory status affects abacavir sulfate approvals and labeling?

Short answer: The core regulatory constraint remains the safety labeling around HLA-B*5701 screening and the management of hypersensitivity reaction.

Regulatory elements that influence use

• Requirement for HLA-B*5701 testing prior to initiation
• Label language on hypersensitivity symptoms, monitoring, and discontinuation guidance
• Contraindication and patient selection language

Commercial implication: Even with generic penetration, physician and payer usage is structured by safety workflow requirements.

---

How do settlement agreements and litigation affect abacavir sulfate product launches?

Short answer: Litigation, when it occurs, typically targets combination product patents rather than the abacavir API. Settlement outcomes can shift launch dates for specific paragraph IV challengers.

Where litigation impact is most visible

• Fixed-dose combinations where a branded reference product has listed patents
• Time-to-market for generic challengers and label carve-outs

Risk framing: For a new entrant evaluating market timing, the key is the litigation history of the specific combination product, not the molecule’s general maturity.

---

What manufacturing and IP barriers affect cost and time to market for abacavir sulfate generics?

Short answer: Barriers are mostly practical and product-specific: bioequivalence requirements, stability, impurity control, and scale manufacturing. IP barriers are less often molecule-level and more often formulation/process.

Operational barriers

• Consistent impurity profile and control strategy
• Stability at real-world storage conditions
• Tablet/coating process reproducibility (for fixed-dose products)
• Documentation readiness for regulatory submissions

Cost driver: Since active ingredients are commoditized, manufacturing efficiency and quality systems drive margin more than patent protection.

---

Key Takeaways

• Abacavir sulfate is a mature NRTI with limited new late-stage clinical development; trial activity centers on regimen optimization, adherence, switch strategies, and safety surveillance.
• Commercial growth is constrained by generic commoditization and regimen preference shifts, but ART scale-up and persistence support stable baseline demand.
• IP leverage is generally combination- or formulation-specific rather than abacavir molecule-level; market timing disputes, if present, are tied to fixed-dose products.
• The largest practical “gate” remains HLA-B*5701 screening for safe initiation, which continues to shape prescribing patterns and payer workflows.
• 2026-2031 outlook is typically modest revenue growth with volume stability and persistent competitive pressure from generic suppliers.

---

FAQs

*1) Why is HLA-B5701 screening critical for abacavir use in HIV treatment?**
It is required to reduce risk of abacavir hypersensitivity reaction; prescribing is structured around testing and contraindication management.

2) Are there long-acting formulations of abacavir sulfate in late-stage development?
Current abacavir-focused programs are not dominated by late-stage long-acting development; most active work is regimen and real-world optimization.

3) Do abacavir sulfate fixed-dose combinations have different patent or launch timelines than standalone abacavir?
Yes. Combination tablets often carry product-level formulation/process patents that can govern US and non-US launch timing.

4) How does abacavir market share change when guidelines favor integrase-based regimens?
Share depends on whether abacavir-inclusive combinations remain available and preferred in local formularies and fixed-dose options for first-line and switch therapy.

5) What is the biggest determinant of generic pricing for abacavir products?
Delivered cost of supply and manufacturing scale, with competition from multiple generic entrants driving margin compression.

---

References

No citable sources were included in the prompt content provided.