List of Excipients in Branded Drug ASCOMP WITH CODEINE

« Back to Dashboard

Generic Drugs Containing ASCOMP WITH CODEINE

Company	Ingredient	NDC	Excipient
Breckenridge Pharmaceutical Inc	butalbital, aspirin, caffeine and codeine phosphate	51991-074	CELLULOSE, MICROCRYSTALLINE
Breckenridge Pharmaceutical Inc	butalbital, aspirin, caffeine and codeine phosphate	51991-074	D&C RED NO. 28
Breckenridge Pharmaceutical Inc	butalbital, aspirin, caffeine and codeine phosphate	51991-074	D&C YELLOW NO. 10
Breckenridge Pharmaceutical Inc	butalbital, aspirin, caffeine and codeine phosphate	51991-074	FD&C BLUE NO. 1
Breckenridge Pharmaceutical Inc	butalbital, aspirin, caffeine and codeine phosphate	51991-074	FD&C RED NO. 40
Breckenridge Pharmaceutical Inc	butalbital, aspirin, caffeine and codeine phosphate	51991-074	GELATIN
Breckenridge Pharmaceutical Inc	butalbital, aspirin, caffeine and codeine phosphate	51991-074	SODIUM LAURYL SULFATE

What are the Most Frequently-Used Excipients in ASCOMP WITH CODEINE?

# Of NDCs	Excipient
2	CELLULOSE, MICROCRYSTALLINE
2	D&C RED NO. 28
2	D&C YELLOW NO. 10
2	FD&C BLUE NO. 1
2	FD&C RED NO. 40
2	GELATIN
2	SODIUM LAURYL SULFATE

Ascomp With Codeine Excipient Strategy and Commercial Opportunities

Last updated: September 18, 2026

Ascomp with Codeine is an oral combination capsule containing butalbital, aspirin, caffeine, and codeine phosphate. The product’s commercial value is tied to an established prescription market, but its excipient strategy is constrained by aspirin stability, opioid handling requirements, capsule compatibility, and the need to preserve bioequivalence. The strongest opportunities are incremental reformulations, packaging improvements, authorized-generic supply, contract manufacturing, and differentiated low-moisture or abuse-deterrent presentations rather than a conventional composition-of-matter patent strategy.

What is Ascomp With Codeine and which active ingredients must the excipient system support?

Ascomp With Codeine combines four active ingredients in a single oral capsule:

Component	Typical labeled strength per capsule	Functional role
Butalbital	50 mg	Barbiturate muscle-relaxant and sedative component
Aspirin	325 mg	Analgesic component
Caffeine	40 mg	Analgesic adjuvant
Codeine phosphate	30 mg	Opioid analgesic

The formulation is intended for the treatment of tension or muscle-contraction headaches when non-opioid therapy is inadequate. The product is prescription-only and contains codeine, which creates controlled-substance distribution, inventory, recordkeeping, and diversion risks. The FDA labeling also carries the clinical risks associated with opioid use, barbiturate exposure, aspirin bleeding, and medication-overuse headache [1].

The product is a difficult fixed-dose combination from a formulation perspective because the four actives have different physical and chemical properties. Aspirin is moisture-sensitive and can hydrolyze to salicylic acid and acetic acid. Caffeine can affect powder flow and blend uniformity. Butalbital and codeine require tight content-uniformity control because both contribute to central nervous system depression. The formulation must also maintain capsule-fill consistency despite a relatively high active load.

What excipients are strategically important for Ascomp With Codeine?

The highest-value excipient decisions concern moisture control, powder flow, capsule integrity, blend uniformity, and manufacturing robustness.

Moisture-management excipients

Aspirin is the principal moisture-sensitive active. The excipient system should minimize water activity and avoid unnecessary exposure to hygroscopic materials. Candidate approaches include:

• Low-moisture lactose grades
• Anhydrous lactose where compatible with the manufacturing process
• Microcrystalline cellulose with controlled moisture content
• Low-moisture pregelatinized starch
• Colloidal silicon dioxide for flow and moisture management
• Magnesium oxide or other alkaline materials only after compatibility testing

Alkaline excipients require caution. Although pH modification can affect aspirin degradation, an alkaline microenvironment may also alter dissolution, API stability, or capsule compatibility. The preferred commercial strategy is usually moisture exclusion through raw-material control, low-water-activity processing, and packaging rather than aggressive pH adjustment.

Fillers and diluents

The product has a substantial active load, so the filler must deliver acceptable bulk density without causing segregation. Microcrystalline cellulose is commercially attractive because it supports direct blending and capsule filling. Lactose is also widely used, but its grade, residual moisture, and interaction profile must be selected carefully.

A formulation using multiple fillers can improve manufacturability but increases change-control complexity. A single primary diluent, supported by a glidant and lubricant, generally produces a simpler CMC package and a more defensible supplier strategy.

Flow aids and lubricants

Colloidal silicon dioxide can improve powder flow and reduce capsule-weight variability. Magnesium stearate can improve ejection and reduce adhesion, but excessive concentration or over-lubrication may slow dissolution. This is relevant because the dosage form contains several actives with different dissolution behavior.

A commercial formulation should control:

• Lubricant concentration
• Blending time
• Shear exposure
• Bulk and tapped density
• Hausner ratio
• Particle-size distribution
• Segregation during hopper residence and capsule filling

Capsule-shell excipients

The capsule shell must provide acceptable mechanical strength and protect the fill from moisture. Hard gelatin capsules are commercially established, but gelatin has greater moisture sensitivity than many hydroxypropyl methylcellulose, or HPMC, alternatives.

An HPMC capsule could provide a differentiated platform where moisture control, vegetarian positioning, or supply diversification is commercially important. The change would require evaluation of:

• Shell moisture transmission
• Brittleness and deformation
• Capsule-lock integrity
• Fill compatibility
• Dissolution performance
• Stability under accelerated conditions
• Visual differentiation and branding

A capsule-shell change is not automatically a minor change from a regulatory perspective. If it changes dissolution, stability, or bioavailability, additional comparative data may be required.

What formulations are protected by Ascomp With Codeine?

The commercial product is more likely to be protected through regulatory exclusivity, trademarks, manufacturing know-how, and supply arrangements than through a durable active-ingredient patent estate.

The formulation concepts with the strongest potential for new intellectual property include:

Reformulation concept	Potential claim scope	Commercial value
Low-moisture capsule fill	Excipient ratios, water activity, packaging combination	Reduces aspirin degradation and extends shelf life
Modified-release presentation	Coated particles, multiparticulates, matrix systems	May reduce peak exposure or dosing frequency
Abuse-deterrent formulation	Physical or chemical resistance to manipulation	Addresses opioid-risk concerns
Improved blend uniformity	Particle engineering and ordered mixtures	Supports dose consistency and lower rejection rates
Alternative capsule shell	HPMC or specialized barrier shell	Enables supply and stability differentiation
Unit-dose packaging	Blister, pouch, or calendar-pack system	Reduces diversion and dispensing errors
Pediatric- or geriatric-oriented dosage form	Lower-strength capsule or multiparticulate system	Expands use only if clinically and regulatorily justified

A new excipient combination can support a patent only when it produces a defensible technical effect. A generic list of conventional fillers, lubricants, and glidants is unlikely to create strong exclusionary protection. The most credible claims would connect a defined composition to measurable outcomes such as reduced aspirin degradation, improved dissolution consistency, lower moisture uptake, or enhanced resistance to tampering.

When does Ascomp With Codeine lose exclusivity?

Ascomp With Codeine is an established combination product rather than a recently launched innovative molecule. Its principal exclusivity risk is therefore generic competition and substitution, not loss of a near-term new-molecule exclusivity period.

The relevant exclusivity categories are:

Exclusivity category	Relevance to Ascomp With Codeine
New chemical entity exclusivity	Not applicable to the established active ingredients
Five-year NCE exclusivity	Not applicable
Three-year clinical-investigation exclusivity	Relevant only to a qualifying new application or change
Orphan-drug exclusivity	Not applicable to the established headache indication
Patent exclusivity	Depends on any currently listed product or method patents
Trademark protection	Can protect the Ascomp name but not prevent generic substitution
Trade-secret protection	May protect manufacturing controls and supplier specifications

The FDA Orange Book is the controlling public source for listed patents, therapeutic-equivalence codes, and approved products [2]. A commercial diligence review should not treat the Ascomp trademark as evidence of formulation exclusivity. Legacy combination products often have limited or no active Orange Book patent protection.

What is the Orange Book status of Ascomp With Codeine?

The Orange Book analysis should focus on four questions:

1. Whether the reference product has a current FDA listing.
2. Whether an approved generic or therapeutically equivalent product is listed.
3. Whether any patents or regulatory exclusivities are identified.
4. Whether the product is approved under an NDA or is supplied through another regulatory pathway.

For this type of product, a generic applicant would generally pursue an ANDA if it can match the reference product’s active ingredients, strength, dosage form, route, labeling requirements, and bioequivalence standards. A formulation that changes the capsule shell, excipient system, release characteristics, or inactive-ingredient profile could trigger additional FDA review.

No Paragraph IV commercial strategy should be assumed without a current Orange Book and Drugs@FDA review. If no relevant patent is listed, a generic applicant would generally avoid a Paragraph IV certification and could instead certify that no patent information is listed or rely on the applicable certification pathway under the ANDA framework [2,3].

Which companies are challenging or competing with Ascomp With Codeine?

Competition comes from three groups:

Generic manufacturers

Potential competitors include companies that manufacture butalbital-containing combinations, opioid analgesic combinations, or contract-produced controlled-substance capsules. Generic entry can occur through:

• A directly substitutable capsule
• A product with the same active ingredients and strengths
• A therapeutically equivalent formulation
• A private-label or authorized-generic arrangement

Controlled-substance compliance can limit the number of capable manufacturers. Schedule III distribution, quota management, security controls, and diversion monitoring make this market less attractive to smaller generic companies.

Brand and branded-generic alternatives

Competing products include Fiorinal with Codeine and other butalbital-containing products. Fiorinal with Codeine has the same broad active-ingredient architecture, although product-specific strengths, labeling, manufacturer, and regulatory status must be evaluated separately.

Non-opioid headache therapies

Triptans, gepants, NSAIDs, acetaminophen combinations, and preventive therapies compete for the same clinical use. These alternatives create long-term commercial pressure because professional guidance increasingly favors limiting opioid and barbiturate exposure for recurrent headache disorders [4].

What patent litigation affects Ascomp With Codeine?

The principal litigation risks are more likely to involve:

• ANDA litigation over a newly listed formulation patent
• Trademark or trade-dress disputes
• Controlled-substance distribution and diversion claims
• False advertising involving comparative efficacy or abuse-deterrent claims
• Product-liability claims related to respiratory depression, dependence, bleeding, or medication-overuse headache

A conventional excipient patent would face a relatively narrow litigation window unless the patent claims a non-obvious stability result, a specialized delivery system, or a technically difficult manufacturing process. Litigation value increases when the claimed formulation is required to meet a specific dissolution or stability profile that competitors cannot easily design around.

Settlement agreements involving generic entrants could include delayed launch, authorized-generic supply, manufacturing licenses, or restrictions tied to controlled-substance capacity. No settlement should be inferred without a public court docket, FDA filing, or company disclosure.

How strong is the patent estate for Ascomp With Codeine?

The likely patent estate is weak to moderate for the legacy product and potentially stronger for a newly engineered formulation.

Patent asset	Expected strength
Core active-ingredient combination	Weak because the ingredients and combination are longstanding
Conventional capsule excipients	Weak unless linked to an unexpected technical result
Low-moisture stability platform	Moderate if supported by comparative stability data
Abuse-deterrent delivery system	Moderate to strong, depending on claims and testing
Manufacturing process	Moderate if process parameters are difficult to replicate
Packaging and moisture barrier	Moderate, usually with limited design-around protection
Trademark and trade dress	Moderate against confusingly similar branding
Supplier know-how	Practical value can exceed formal patent value

The strongest strategy is layered protection. A sponsor could combine a narrow composition patent, a process patent, a packaging patent, confidential raw-material specifications, and controlled-substance manufacturing know-how. Each layer should address a separate design-around route.

What FDA regulatory issues apply to an Ascomp With Codeine reformulation?

The regulatory route depends on the extent of the change.

Same active ingredients and immediate-release capsule

A directly substitutable product would generally require an ANDA supported by pharmaceutical equivalence, bioequivalence, stability, manufacturing, and labeling documentation [3].

New excipient or unusual level

A novel excipient or materially higher exposure to an excipient can increase FDA scrutiny. The sponsor must establish safety, demonstrate product performance, and address inactive-ingredient precedent.

Modified release or abuse deterrence

A modified-release product or abuse-deterrent product would require substantial clinical and in vitro characterization. Abuse-deterrent labeling claims require evidence under FDA’s abuse-deterrent opioid guidance and cannot be based solely on a harder capsule shell or a change in tablet appearance [5].

New indication or materially changed clinical use

A new clinical claim would generally require a separate regulatory strategy. Excipient optimization alone does not support an expanded indication.

What commercial opportunities exist for excipient-led reformulation?

Low-moisture, longer-shelf-life product

A stability-focused product could target wholesalers, institutional pharmacies, and controlled-substance distributors. The value proposition would be lower degradation risk, fewer stability failures, and improved inventory flexibility.

HPMC capsule and vegetarian positioning

An HPMC shell could support a differentiated product for selected pharmacy and institutional channels. The opportunity is commercially limited if the change raises cost without improving stability or procurement access.

Unit-dose and tamper-evident packaging

Blister packaging or serialized unit-dose formats could reduce diversion, improve pharmacy control, and support institutional use. Packaging can be commercially important even when it does not create direct therapeutic differentiation.

Authorized-generic manufacturing

A sponsor with controlled-substance manufacturing capacity could supply an authorized generic or private-label version. This model can monetize production capability without relying on a large patent barrier.

Contract development and manufacturing

The combination requires experienced handling of opioid and barbiturate materials, analytical testing, blend uniformity, and controlled-substance compliance. A manufacturer with validated processes could offer development, scale-up, packaging, and supply services to smaller marketing authorization holders.

Reformulation for reduced abuse potential

An abuse-deterrent version may attract strategic interest, but the development cost and evidentiary burden are high. The commercial case would depend on payer recognition, prescriber acceptance, label differentiation, and whether the formulation reduces abuse in real-world settings.

How does Ascomp With Codeine compare with non-opioid headache products?

Factor	Ascomp With Codeine	Non-opioid alternatives
Active-ingredient complexity	High, with four actives	Often lower
Excipient challenge	Aspirin moisture sensitivity and multi-API blend	Usually simpler
Controlled-substance burden	Yes	Usually absent
Generic substitution risk	High for established products	High in mature categories
Reformulation opportunity	Stability, packaging, abuse deterrence	Delivery and tolerability
Clinical market direction	Constrained by opioid and barbiturate concerns	Supported by broader guideline movement
Supply-chain barrier	Controlled-substance compliance	Generally lower
Patent opportunity	Mainly incremental formulation patents	Depends on the competing product

What generic launch scenarios exist for Ascomp With Codeine?

The most credible launch scenarios are:

1. A standard immediate-release generic capsule with conventional excipients.
2. An authorized generic supplied by the brand owner or a manufacturing partner.
3. A private-label product sold through institutional or pharmacy channels.
4. A differentiated capsule with moisture-barrier packaging.
5. A non-substitutable reformulation requiring a separate regulatory pathway.

A conventional generic would likely compete primarily on price, availability, and supply reliability. A differentiated formulation would need a clear economic benefit, such as longer shelf life, lower batch failure rates, simplified storage, or improved diversion controls.

Key Takeaways

• Ascomp With Codeine contains butalbital, aspirin, caffeine, and codeine phosphate in an oral capsule.
• Aspirin stability and multi-API blend uniformity are the central excipient challenges.
• Low-moisture excipients, controlled raw-material specifications, and barrier packaging offer the clearest near-term opportunities.
• A conventional excipient combination is unlikely to create strong patent protection without unexpected stability or dissolution data.
• HPMC capsules, unit-dose packaging, and controlled-substance manufacturing services can support commercial differentiation.
• Generic competition is the principal exclusivity risk for this established combination product.
• Any current Orange Book patent, exclusivity, Paragraph IV, or litigation conclusion requires a contemporaneous review of FDA and court records.
• Non-opioid headache therapies create a structural commercial constraint on long-term growth.
• The strongest commercial model is likely a combination of formulation know-how, supply reliability, packaging control, and authorized-generic or contract-manufacturing capability.

FAQs About Ascomp With Codeine Excipient Strategy

Can Ascomp With Codeine be reformulated with a non-gelatin capsule?

Yes, an HPMC capsule is technically feasible, but the sponsor must establish comparable stability, dissolution, fill performance, and bioequivalence where required.

Which excipient is most important for aspirin stability in Ascomp With Codeine?

Moisture control is more important than any single excipient. Low-moisture filler selection, water-activity control, processing conditions, and barrier packaging should be evaluated as one system.

Can a new excipient create an Ascomp With Codeine patent?

It can support a patent when the formulation produces a non-obvious and measurable technical benefit, such as materially improved aspirin stability or a defined abuse-deterrent property.

Would an Ascomp With Codeine generic require a Paragraph IV certification?

Only if a relevant patent is listed in the Orange Book and the applicant seeks approval before patent expiration while challenging that patent. If no applicable patent is listed, a Paragraph IV certification would generally not be required.

Is Ascomp With Codeine a strong candidate for an abuse-deterrent reformulation?

It is technically possible, but the case is complicated by the presence of both codeine and butalbital. The development program would need to address manipulation, extraction, pharmacokinetics, labeling, and the commercial value of the resulting claim.

References

1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (n.d.). Ascomp with Codeine prescribing information.
2. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (n.d.). Approved drug products with therapeutic equivalence evaluations, Orange Book.
3. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2019). ANDAs for certain highly purified synthetic peptides and drug products that reference them: Guidance for industry.
4. American Headache Society. (2015). The American Headache Society position statement on integrating new migraine treatments into clinical practice. Headache, 55(5), 740-752.
5. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2015). Abuse-deterrent opioid analgesics: Evaluation and labeling guidance for industry.