EMTRICITABINE; TENOFOVIR ALAFENAMIDE FUMARATE: Pharmaceutical manufacturers, suppliers, and wholesalers

Subscribe to access the full database, or Start Trial
Applicant	Tradename	Generic Name	Dosage	NDA	NDA/ANDA	Supplier	Package Code	Package	Marketing Start
Gilead Sciences Inc	DESCOVY	emtricitabine; tenofovir alafenamide fumarate	TABLET;ORAL	208215	NDA	Gilead Sciences, Inc.	61958-2002-1	30 TABLET in 1 BOTTLE, PLASTIC (61958-2002-1)	2016-04-04
Gilead Sciences Inc	DESCOVY	emtricitabine; tenofovir alafenamide fumarate	TABLET;ORAL	208215	NDA	Gilead Sciences, Inc.	61958-2002-2	30 TABLET in 1 BLISTER PACK (61958-2002-2)	2016-04-04
Gilead Sciences Inc	DESCOVY	emtricitabine; tenofovir alafenamide fumarate	TABLET;ORAL	208215	NDA	Gilead Sciences, Inc.	61958-2005-1	30 TABLET in 1 BOTTLE, PLASTIC (61958-2005-1)	2022-01-07
>Applicant	>Tradename	>Generic Name	>Dosage	>NDA	>NDA/ANDA	>Supplier	>Package Code	>Package	>Marketing Start

Last updated: May 27, 2026

EMTRICITABINE and TENOFOVIR ALAFENAMIDE FUMARATE Supplier Map: API, Intermediates, and Finished-Dose Sources

Executive summary: Suppliers for emtricitabine (FTC) and tenofovir alafenamide fumarate (TAF) typically split into (1) API and key intermediates for nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors and (2) finished-dose manufacturers (FDCs) for HIV regimens. The supplier landscape is concentrated among established antiretroviral API producers, with additional third-party intermediate and contract manufacturing capacity used to support global commercial supply.

What follows is an actionable supplier framework you can use to build an upstream sourcing and manufacturing risk map for FTC + TAF products, covering the supply chain tiers most relevant to licensing, litigation, regulatory CMC, and continuity of supply.

Which companies supply emtricitabine (FTC) API and emtricitabine intermediates?

Direct API suppliers (typical categories):

Tenofovir-era antiretroviral API specialists that produce cytidine analogs and related intermediates under GMP for global HIV markets.
Large-scale generic API manufacturers with DMF/CEP infrastructure and established nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) portfolios.
CMO/C(D)MO intermediates providers supplying protected nucleosides or deprotected nucleoside cores.

Common FTC intermediate supply chain nodes (procurement-relevant):

Protected nucleoside intermediates (sugar and base protection/deprotection steps).
Halogenation or coupling intermediates used in nucleobase installation.
Final API crystallization and polymorph control inputs used to meet dissolution specifications.

How to use this for supplier screening:

Verify FTC source via Drug Master File (DMF) or cross-reference in approved applications.
Confirm whether the supplier is tied to the specific finished-dose NDA/ANDA supplier’s drug substance section through referential filings and strength specifications.
For continuity planning, require back-up capability for the key crystallization step and impurity control endpoints (FTC impurity profile is tightly regulated).

Which companies supply tenofovir alafenamide fumarate (TAF) API, TA F intermediates, and fumarate salt material?

Direct API suppliers (typical categories):

TAF-focused nucleotide prodrug API producers with proven process capability for the alafenamide prodrug and salt formation.
Nucleotide intermediate manufacturers supporting key esterifications and prodrug assembly.
Salt-formulation specialists producing fumarate salt with consistent polymorph and hydration behavior.

Procurement-relevant TAF intermediate and salt nodes:

Precursors for the alafenamide moiety and coupling intermediates.
Steps that define impurity formation control across prodrug assembly.
Fumarate salt formation and crystallization, including filtration and drying conditions affecting dissolution.

How to use this for supplier screening:

Confirm the supplier controls both the prodrug synthesis and the salt/particle properties required to match dissolution and exposure targets.
Require stability and impurity data aligned to your intended shelf-life and handling conditions, especially because salt form can alter powder behavior and batch-to-batch release.

Which finished-dose manufacturers produce emtricitabine + tenofovir alafenamide fumarate combination tablets?

Finished-dose manufacturers typically break into:

Innovator combination product producers for HIV regimens containing FTC + TAF (and common fixed-dose backbones).
Generic tablet suppliers in regulated markets (subject to Orange Book status, patent position, and regulatory pathway).

Commercial-relevant packaging and strength variants:

FTC/TAF fixed-dose tablets (commonly used in once-daily HIV therapy).
Multi-API fixed-dose combinations with third antiretrovirals (where supplier footprints expand due to additional API sourcing and CMC coordination).

Sourcing and CMC integration points:

Ensure your chosen API suppliers can support tablet formulation compatibility and stability across your target excipient system.
Confirm drug substance particle size distribution, which impacts tablet compressibility and dissolution.

How do API and CMO sourcing risks differ for FTC vs TAF?

FTC sourcing risk profile (typical):

Lower complexity than nucleotide prodrugs in many process respects, but still constrained by:
- impurity profile consistency
- crystallization and polymorph control
- nucleoside intermediate procurement continuity

TAF sourcing risk profile (typical):

Higher sensitivity to:
- process reproducibility in prodrug synthesis
- fumarate salt formation reproducibility
- dissolution and impurity control tied to prodrug and salt characteristics

What this means operationally:

Dual-source strategy is more valuable for TAF because salt formation and particle behavior can create formulation release differences.
CMO switching risk is often higher for TAF because tablet dissolution and stability are tightly linked to drug substance attributes.

What Orange Book and regulatory filings typically reveal about upstream suppliers for FTC + TAF?

Orange Book is not a supplier map, but it drives the evidentiary path:

For generics, the Orange Book lists drug product patents and whether an ANDA is approved.
Drug substance supplier identification is usually found via:
- DMF cross-references
- regulatory application exhibits
- CMC section references in publicly accessible submissions where available

Best practice for due diligence:

Map each target product’s approved ANDA/NDA to:
1. drug substance DMF holder(s)
2. the API manufacturing site(s)
3. the drug product site(s)

This creates a defensible sourcing and litigation posture because upstream supplier identity can be used to establish manufacturing equivalence or non-equivalence in disputes.

What patent or exclusivity events affect supplier access for FTC + TAF products?

Supplier access is indirectly tied to product patent position:

If exclusivity or composition-of-matter coverage constrains generic entry, the upstream supply chain can remain dominated by the innovator-linked API and CMO ecosystem.
When Paragraph IV challenges succeed or settlements occur, generic supply expands, increasing the number of potential API and finished-dose suppliers.

Procurement consequence:

In constrained patent periods, the “available suppliers” pool often narrows even if chemically capable vendors exist, because regulatory filings and quality systems align to specific product approval pathways.

Which generic entry risks exist for FTC + TAF tablets based on supplier and CMC barriers?

CMC-driven generic risks:

TAF dissolution and particle attribute transfer risk can require additional development batches and method verification.
Impurity control and salt polymorph reproducibility can trigger release test failures.
Scale-up from API to tablet manufacturing can produce different impurity levels or dissolution profiles.

Operational consequence:

Even when API is available, regulatory approval depends on matching the impurity profile and dissolution behavior under the generic manufacturer’s formulation and process.

How many qualified suppliers typically exist for FTC and TAF in regulated markets?

Market structure (typical):

FTC: a broader supplier base due to longer commercial history and multiple nucleoside producers.
TAF: a narrower base due to prodrug complexity and tighter process qualification tied to salt and dissolution attributes.

Actionable procurement approach:

Build two layers of supply:
- Primary API supplier for continuity
- Secondary API supplier with validated dissolution and impurity compliance to your tablet method

Key Takeaways

FTC and TAF sourcing splits into upstream API and intermediates plus downstream finished-dose tablet production, with TAF showing higher sensitivity to salt and dissolution attributes.
Regulatory filings (Orange Book plus DMF-linked CMC content) are the fastest path to identify the real upstream supplier ecosystem tied to specific approved products.
The most material procurement risks for FTC + TAF are impurity profile control (FTC and TAF) and salt/dissolution reproducibility (TAF), which affects both CMO switching and generic entry execution.
Supplier count tends to be higher for FTC than for TAF due to nucleotide prodrug complexity and qualification constraints.

FAQs

1) Which excipient and formulation factors most affect dissolution for FTC + TAF tablets?
Tablet dissolution is primarily driven by TAF drug substance particle attributes and impurity profile transfer, plus excipient choices that control wettability and disintegration.

2) Can different TAF fumarate suppliers be used without revalidation?
Not typically without bridging work, because salt form and particle properties can shift dissolution and impurity results.

3) What documentation is needed to qualify a new FTC or TAF API supplier for a finished-dose program?
Qualification focuses on GMP compliance, CoA consistency for impurities, particle attributes, and demonstration that dissolution and stability meet the product’s established specifications.

4) How do DMFs change the supplier landscape for FTC + TAF?
DMFs tie specific API manufacturing processes and sites to regulatory approvals, which can enable or block certain suppliers depending on whether they are referenced for the target product.

5) What CMC tests are most likely to fail during scale-up for TAF-containing tablets?
Dissolution and impurity profiling are common friction points, especially where salt formation and drying conditions shift particle behavior.

References

Not provided.

Suppliers and packagers for generic pharmaceutical drug: EMTRICITABINE; TENOFOVIR ALAFENAMIDE FUMARATE