Last Updated: May 30, 2026

CLINICAL TRIALS PROFILE FOR RINGER'S IN PLASTIC CONTAINER


✉ Email this page to a colleague

« Back to Dashboard


505(b)(2) Clinical Trials for Ringer's In Plastic Container

This table shows clinical trials for potential 505(b)(2) applications. See the next table for all clinical trials
Trial Type Trial ID Title Status Sponsor Phase Start Date Summary
New Dosage NCT00968799 ↗ Hyperthermic Intraoperative Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy of Recurrent Ovarian Cancer - A Feasibility Study Terminated Cantonal Hospital of St. Gallen N/A 2008-02-01 Most studies performing hyperthermic intraoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy dose the cytotoxic drugs according to the body surface (like 50 mg/m² cisplatin) in analogy to systemic, intravenous chemotherapy (usually using the same dose). Although there seems to be a correlation between body surface and blood volume, the pharmacodynamics of drugs dosed by the body surface is still highly variable and thus dosing on the body surface is increasingly considered controversial for systemic administration. For hyperthermic intraoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy dosing by the body surface makes even less sense, since the aim is the highest possible drug concentration in the peritoneum without undue local and systemic toxicity. Furthermore, most studies using intraoperative chemotherapy vary the volume of the perfusate according to the size of the patient. Since the amount of cytotoxic drug is already fixed by the dosing on the body surface (amount [mg] = dose [mg/m²] x body surface [m²]) the effective concentration (mg/l) in the perfusate can vary considerably between patients. On the other hand pharmacokinetic analyses have shown that reducing the concentration of the cytotoxic drug in the perfusate reduces the efficacy even if the amount of the drug remains the same. In this study the safety of a new dosing regime will be evaluated. The concentration of cisplatin in the perfusate will be held constant independent of body weight or size to achieve the highest effectiveness of the chemotherapy. The primary endpoint is the safety of the treatment. All patients should be able to receive full dose systemic carboplatin chemotherapy after completion the trial treatment.
>Trial Type >Trial ID >Title >Status >Phase >Start Date >Summary

All Clinical Trials for Ringer's In Plastic Container

Trial ID Title Status Sponsor Phase Start Date Summary
NCT00113685 ↗ Hypertonic Saline With Dextran for Treating Hypovolemic Shock and Severe Brain Injury Completed National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) N/A 2003-04-01 The purpose of this study is to evaluate the clinical outcome of patients following blunt traumatic injury with hypovolemic shock, who receive either lactated ringer's solution or hypertonic saline with dextran (HSD) resuscitation; also, to focus specifically on neurologic outcome in patients with brain injury and on the effect of HSD resuscitation on inflammatory cell responsiveness.
NCT00113685 ↗ Hypertonic Saline With Dextran for Treating Hypovolemic Shock and Severe Brain Injury Completed University of Washington N/A 2003-04-01 The purpose of this study is to evaluate the clinical outcome of patients following blunt traumatic injury with hypovolemic shock, who receive either lactated ringer's solution or hypertonic saline with dextran (HSD) resuscitation; also, to focus specifically on neurologic outcome in patients with brain injury and on the effect of HSD resuscitation on inflammatory cell responsiveness.
NCT00119184 ↗ Spinal Analgesia Versus No Analgesia: Study for External Cephalic Version Terminated Hadassah Medical Organization Phase 1 2002-10-01 The purpose of this study is to examine whether spinal anesthesia affects the chances of successful external cephalic version (ECV) of a breech presenting fetus. Two study groups will be included; one will receive spinal anesthesia, the other will not. The non-spinal group will be permitted to cross over if ECV procedure is painful. The main outcome is success of ECV.
>Trial ID >Title >Status >Phase >Start Date >Summary

Clinical Trial Conditions for Ringer's In Plastic Container

Condition Name

Condition Name for Ringer's In Plastic Container
Intervention Trials
Hypotension 13
Anesthesia 11
Cesarean Section 9
[disabled in preview] 1
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Condition MeSH

Condition MeSH for Ringer's In Plastic Container
Intervention Trials
Hypotension 35
Pain, Postoperative 22
Pancreatitis 16
[disabled in preview] 1
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Clinical Trial Locations for Ringer's In Plastic Container

Trials by Country

Trials by Country for Ringer's In Plastic Container
Location Trials
Egypt 110
China 45
United States 44
Canada 12
Indonesia 9
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Trials by US State

Trials by US State for Ringer's In Plastic Container
Location Trials
Pennsylvania 5
California 4
Connecticut 4
Illinois 4
Texas 3
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Clinical Trial Progress for Ringer's In Plastic Container

Clinical Trial Phase

Clinical Trial Phase for Ringer's In Plastic Container
Clinical Trial Phase Trials
PHASE4 19
PHASE3 8
PHASE2 5
[disabled in preview] 0
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Clinical Trial Status

Clinical Trial Status for Ringer's In Plastic Container
Clinical Trial Phase Trials
Completed 167
Recruiting 72
Not yet recruiting 50
[disabled in preview] 0
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Clinical Trial Sponsors for Ringer's In Plastic Container

Sponsor Name

Sponsor Name for Ringer's In Plastic Container
Sponsor Trials
Ain Shams University 29
Cairo University 18
Kasr El Aini Hospital 15
[disabled in preview] 0
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Sponsor Type

Sponsor Type for Ringer's In Plastic Container
Sponsor Trials
Other 504
Industry 45
OTHER_GOV 5
[disabled in preview] 0
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial
Last updated: May 26, 2026

Ringer’s Injection in Plastic Container: Clinical Trials Update, Market Analysis, and 2026–2035 Projection

Ringer’s injection in plastic container is a mature, low-regulatory-barrier intravenous (IV) electrolyte product line with limited innovation-led patent coverage and heavy price competition. Market growth is driven by hospital and emergency-care utilization, substitution across generic and branded SKUs, and manufacturing capacity in flexible plastic packaging. Pricing pressure keeps absolute value growth modest even as volume rises.


What clinical trials are ongoing for Ringer’s injection in plastic container?

No credible, publicly indexed late-stage clinical development programs were found that are specifically labeled “Ringer’s in plastic container” as a distinct investigational drug program. For this product category, “clinical trials” activity in public registries typically maps to:

  • New formulations or container systems (rare for Ringer’s due to established compendial compositions)
  • Comparability studies for refilling and in-use stability for specific plastic container technologies
  • Comparative efficacy trials between balanced crystalloids (e.g., Ringer’s solution vs. lactated Ringer’s vs. Plasma-Lyte), which generally do not separate “plastic container” as the clinical variable

How do trials usually differentiate plastic container vs composition?

Clinical endpoints in “balanced crystalloid” studies focus on:

  • Acute kidney injury or renal recovery
  • Mortality or composite shock outcomes
  • Acid-base changes and electrolytes

The container material is typically a manufacturing and compatibility variable, not the study’s clinical endpoint driver. When container-related studies occur, they are most often pharmaceutics, stability, and device-related comparability rather than pivotal clinical efficacy.

Implication for a trials update

For market planning, the practical conclusion is that Ringer’s in plastic containers should be treated as a commercial, not pipeline, competitive dynamic. Competitive actions come from:

  • Supply expansion
  • Regulatory/CMC approvals for equivalent products
  • Contracting and tender wins in institutional channels
  • Packaging cost advantages and logistics

What is the FDA status of Ringer’s injection in plastic container (Orange Book and approvals)?

Ringer’s injection is generally treated as an established compounded or standardized electrolyte solution under compendial references (composition-driven) rather than as a discrete, patent-protected small molecule. In practice, FDA market access for these products is dominated by:

  • Abbreviated approvals for pharmaceutically equivalent versions
  • Generics and authorized equivalents for container formats
  • Labeling and CMC conformity for container type

Because the topic is specifically “in plastic container,” the key regulatory lever is the FDA labeling and approved container configuration that supports distribution under hospital purchasing standards.

Orange Book risk profile

Balanced electrolyte injections of this type usually exhibit:

  • Minimal innovation patent coverage that materially blocks generic entry
  • Potentially more relevant exclusivity around specific manufacturing changes (rare) rather than the core active composition

For business planning, the main regulatory gating issue is CMC and packaging compatibility, not clinical data generation.


What patents protect Ringer’s injection in plastic container?

The protection landscape is dominated by:

  • Packaging and container manufacturing processes (polymer blend, seals, barrier properties)
  • Sterility assurance and manufacturing methods (process patents)
  • Product-specific formulations where the label includes additional components beyond a standard Ringer’s composition (less common for “plain” Ringer’s)
  • Method-of-use patents (unlikely to block basic electrolyte use)

Which patent classes are most likely to matter commercially?

  1. Container/closure system patents
    • Seal design, oxygen/moisture barrier, leachables control
  2. Manufacturing process patents
    • Sterilization cycle design, filtration, aseptic processing steps
  3. Stability and compatibility patents
    • Shelf-life extension for specific container sizes and storage conditions

Exclusivity and enforcement reality for this category

Compared with branded therapeutics, enforcement risk is lower because:

  • The core therapeutic is composition-based and widely standardized
  • Institutional formularies allow rapid substitution among equivalent crystalloids

Business impact comes from procurement and supply reliability more than from patent litigation.


When does Ringer’s injection in plastic container lose exclusivity?

For this product class, “exclusivity” typically does not behave like a single branded drug with a clear biologic-like exclusivity clock or a dominant single sponsor patent set. The market generally operates under:

  • Either “first-to-market” advantages (if any)
  • Or contract wins and capacity constraints
  • Then steady competitive normalization via generics

Therefore, the practical exclusivity question is not “one date,” but “how quickly equivalents can clear CMC and packaging approvals and win tenders.”


What generic entry risks exist for Ringer’s injection in plastic container?

Key entry risks for a potential competitor are:

  • Container qualification and CMC compliance for flexible plastic systems
  • Stability data demonstrating compendial compatibility and acceptable leachables
  • Manufacturing scale-up and aseptic process robustness
  • Logistics and distribution tender constraints (lead times, temperature excursions, lot traceability)

What reduces generic launch risk?

  • Standardization of composition
  • Availability of container supply chains
  • Experience with aseptic processing and stability packages

What increases launch risk?

  • Specific container sizes or special hospital-grade packaging specs
  • Data packages that do not match FDA expectations for leachables/compatibility
  • Limited aseptic capacity leading to delayed releases

How does Ringer’s injection in plastic container compare with lactated Ringer’s and other balanced crystalloids?

Procurement decisions are often driven by comparative clinical guidance and contract pricing. In practice:

  • “Balanced crystalloids” compete for similar indications in ED, perioperative care, sepsis, trauma, and ICU fluid resuscitation
  • Clinical differentiation between Ringer’s, lactated Ringer’s, Plasma-Lyte, and other balanced solutions exists in some literature through electrolyte composition and acid-base effects
  • Container format is usually a secondary purchasing dimension unless it affects administration workflow or storage constraints

Competitive substitution map

  • Hospitals often maintain multiple balanced crystalloid options
  • When supply or price changes, substitution across equivalent SKUs happens quickly
  • Brand loyalty is usually weak relative to contract and pharmacy formulary dynamics

Who are the key competitors selling Ringer’s injection in plastic containers?

Competition is typically among:

  • Large sterile injectable manufacturers
  • Generic-focused players with flexible container portfolios
  • Contract manufacturers supplying major labelers

Because the specific market share depends heavily on container size, strength, and hospital tender geography, a precise roster requires SKU-level Orange Book and labeler-level extraction. Without that, any named list would be speculative.


What is the market size and growth outlook for Ringer’s injection in plastic containers?

Ringer’s injection is a high-volume supportive-care IV product. The market is structurally shaped by:

  • Annual procedure volumes (surgeries, ED visits, trauma care)
  • ICU bed utilization and sepsis management protocols
  • Antibiotic and surgery-linked fluid management patterns
  • Seasonal variations in acute care demand

Growth drivers

  • Volume growth from ongoing hospital admissions and perioperative capacity
  • Procurement rationalization toward standardized fluid portfolios
  • Expansion in flexible plastic container capacity and lower distribution cost

Growth constraints

  • Price compression from generics
  • Tender bargaining and multi-sourcing pressure
  • Regulatory and CMC burden that slows entry for smaller players

Market value vs volume

For many sterile electrolyte products, volume grows faster than value because:

  • Unit pricing declines as more equivalents enter
  • Contracts are re-bid frequently

2026–2035 projection: revenue, volume, and share impact scenarios

A credible projection for this category should separate volume from value. Without SKU-specific baseline revenue and unit data, a projection can only be structured as scenario bands.

Base-case structure (typical for mature sterile injectables)

  • Moderate single-digit CAGR in volume
  • Low single-digit CAGR in value
  • Ongoing share rotation toward lowest-cost qualified suppliers

Upside case assumptions

  • Faster tender cycle awards to flexible container suppliers
  • Capacity expansions reduce shortages and lost sales
  • Slight pricing stabilization due to fewer supply gaps

Downside case assumptions

  • Additional price erosion from new entrants
  • Capacity closures or regulatory enforcement reduce supply in key geographies
  • Higher raw material and packaging costs without offsetting price increases

How container format affects the projection

Flexible plastic containers usually improve:

  • Handling and transport efficiency
  • Storage workflow
  • Dose administration compatibility

These factors can shift procurement, but they do not change the clinical composition, so margins remain capped by generic competition.


Which regions offer the best opportunity for Ringer’s injection in plastic containers?

Institutional purchasing dominates demand across:

  • United States (high tender intensity, generic substitution, strict CMC gating)
  • EU-5 (regulated supply chains and price controls in some markets)
  • Emerging markets where sterile injectable demand grows with hospital expansion

The best opportunities typically align with:

  • Fast growth in hospital admissions
  • Lower manufacturing penetration, enabling new capacity
  • Procurement frameworks that reward supply reliability

What packaging and manufacturing IP barriers limit new entrants?

For flexible plastic IV products, the largest barriers are not therapeutic patents. They are operational:

  • Barrier and leachables control
  • Seal integrity and closure systems
  • Aseptic processing validation
  • Sterility assurance calculations and batch release testing
  • Container-specific stability under real-world conditions

Even when composition is generic, the container-grade qualification and manufacturing validation can delay launches and increase upfront costs.


What patent litigation affects Ringer’s injection in plastic containers?

Patent litigation in this category, when it occurs, typically concerns:

  • Process patents for container manufacturing or aseptic processes
  • Leachables/stability-related formulation or compatibility claims
  • Device-like container component patents (rare but possible)

There is no consistent pattern of headline litigation controlling market entry the way it does for branded small molecules. Competitive risk tends to be procurement and supply rather than courts.


How strong is the patent estate for Ringer’s injection in plastic container?

Overall strength is typically low-to-moderate for blocking therapeutic substitution:

  • Composition is standard and widely replicable
  • Patent coverage, where present, tends to be narrow and specific to processes or container systems
  • Enforcement is harder when entrants can use different container designs or manufacturing pathways

For investors and strategists, this means:

  • Patent strategy is less likely to block competitors
  • Commercial strategy (capacity, contracts, compliance execution) drives outcomes

Key Takeaways

  • Ringer’s injection in plastic container behaves as a mature supportive-care product with limited innovation-led pipeline value.
  • Clinical trials do not typically treat container material as a primary differentiator; competition is primarily generics, supply, and tender economics.
  • Exclusivity is not a single-date story; competitive normalization occurs via CMC-cleared equivalents.
  • Competitive advantage is more likely to come from manufacturing scale, container qualification, and contract pricing than from enforceable patent estate strength.

FAQs

1) Is Ringer’s injection in plastic container therapeutically interchangeable with lactated Ringer’s?

Hospitals often substitute among balanced crystalloids based on electrolyte composition protocols and contract pricing; interchangeability depends on local formulary and clinical pathway.

2) What drives procurement decisions for Ringer’s injection versus other crystalloids?

Tender price, supply reliability, storage and administration convenience, and formulary preferences in ED, OR, and ICU.

3) What CMC data packages are most critical for a generic Ringer’s in plastic container?

Container-specific stability, sterility assurance, and leachables/compatibility documentation aligned to FDA expectations.

4) Do container changes create meaningful IP barriers?

They can create narrow barriers around closure and manufacturing, but they rarely block substitution at the composition level.

5) What risks most affect market supply for IV electrolyte solutions?

Aseptic capacity constraints, packaging supply chain disruptions, and regulatory compliance events that delay batch release.


References

No sources were cited.

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.