List of Excipients in Branded Drug CLINDAMYCIN PALMITATE HYDROCHLORIDE (PEDIATRIC)

« Back to Dashboard

Generic Drugs Containing CLINDAMYCIN PALMITATE HYDROCHLORIDE (PEDIATRIC)

Company	Ingredient	NDC	Excipient
NorthStar Rx LLC	clindamycin palmitate hydrochloride (pediatric)	16714-483	CHERRY
NorthStar Rx LLC	clindamycin palmitate hydrochloride (pediatric)	16714-483	DIMETHICONE
NorthStar Rx LLC	clindamycin palmitate hydrochloride (pediatric)	16714-483	ETHYLPARABEN
NorthStar Rx LLC	clindamycin palmitate hydrochloride (pediatric)	16714-483	ICODEXTRIN

What are the Most Frequently-Used Excipients in CLINDAMYCIN PALMITATE HYDROCHLORIDE (PEDIATRIC)?

# Of NDCs	Excipient
2	CHERRY
2	DIMETHICONE
2	ETHYLPARABEN
2	ICODEXTRIN

Clindamycin Palmitate Hydrochloride Pediatric Excipient Strategy and Commercial Opportunities

Last updated: August 23, 2026

Clindamycin palmitate hydrochloride remains a practical pediatric oral antibiotic platform because it converts poorly palatable clindamycin into a dry powder for aqueous reconstitution. The main commercial opportunity is not molecule exclusivity. It is product differentiation through taste, sugar and dye reduction, dose accuracy, packaging, stability, and supply reliability.

The reference product is Cleocin Pediatric, an oral solution containing clindamycin palmitate hydrochloride equivalent to 75 mg clindamycin per 5 mL after reconstitution. The product is an immediate-release prescription antibiotic used for susceptible bacterial infections, including selected respiratory, skin, bone, joint, pelvic, and intra-abdominal infections.[1]

The principal excipient weaknesses are sucrose content, artificial flavor, synthetic color, reconstitution requirements, and the risk of poor adherence caused by clindamycin's pronounced bitterness. These characteristics create a differentiated generic and lifecycle-management opportunity, but they do not create a strong conventional patent position.

What is clindamycin palmitate hydrochloride pediatric oral solution?

Clindamycin palmitate hydrochloride is an orally administered prodrug salt that is hydrolyzed in vivo to active clindamycin. The pediatric dosage form is supplied as dry granules or powder that must be reconstituted with water before dispensing.

Product attribute	Reference-product profile
Active ingredient	Clindamycin palmitate hydrochloride
Active-equivalent strength	75 mg clindamycin per 5 mL
Dosage form	Powder for oral solution
Administration	Oral, usually divided into three or four daily doses
Regulatory status	Prescription drug
Reference product	Cleocin Pediatric
Original sponsor	The Upjohn Company; later associated with Pfizer
Key excipients	Sucrose, sodium saccharin, FD&C Yellow No. 6, artificial flavor
Primary technical issue	Bitterness and palatability after reconstitution
Primary commercial issue	Mature generic market with limited molecule-level exclusivity

The product label warns that clindamycin can cause severe antibiotic-associated diarrhea and colitis, including Clostridioides difficile-associated diarrhea. That safety profile affects pediatric prescribing and creates a competitive constraint against indiscriminate use.[1]

What excipients are used in clindamycin palmitate hydrochloride pediatric products?

The reference formulation uses sucrose as a bulk sweetener, sodium saccharin as an intense sweetener, FD&C Yellow No. 6 as a colorant, and artificial flavor.[1] The exact composition of generic products can differ, subject to FDA requirements for inactive ingredients and product equivalence.

Sucrose

Sucrose provides bulk, sweetness, and mouthfeel. It also helps produce a familiar syrup-like pediatric suspension after reconstitution.

Commercial disadvantages include:

• High sugar exposure in repeated pediatric dosing
• Suitability concerns for children with diabetes or restricted sugar intake
• Dental-health concerns with prolonged or frequent administration
• Potential product-positioning disadvantage against sugar-free alternatives
• Higher density and possible dosing variability if the suspension is not adequately shaken

A sugar-free formulation is the clearest excipient-led opportunity. Sucrose can be replaced with a combination of polyols and high-intensity sweeteners, but the formulation must control viscosity, osmolarity, gastrointestinal tolerance, microbial risk, and bitterness.

Sodium saccharin

Sodium saccharin improves sweetness at low concentration and remains useful in sugar-reduced products. Its taste profile can include a delayed or lingering aftertaste, which may be noticeable when the active ingredient is strongly bitter.

Potential replacement or combination systems include sucralose, acesulfame potassium, aspartame where appropriate, steviol glycosides, or newer flavor-modulation systems. Each alternative requires evaluation for pediatric acceptability, stability, regulatory status, and compatibility with the active drug.

FD&C Yellow No. 6

The colorant supports product identification and consumer acceptability. A dye-free product could appeal to parents seeking reduced synthetic color exposure and to institutions that prefer simplified excipient profiles.

Removing the dye is technically straightforward compared with removing sucrose or improving taste. The main commercial tradeoff is reduced visual differentiation and a potential need for stronger packaging controls to prevent dispensing errors.

Artificial flavor

Flavor is the most commercially important excipient category because clindamycin has a strong bitter taste. A conventional fruit flavor may mask some bitterness but can leave a persistent aftertaste if the active is not adequately complexed or modulated.

Flavor systems should be screened using pediatric sensory testing rather than adult panels alone. Taste-masking approaches can include:

• Sweetener and flavor combinations
• Ion-exchange resin complexes
• Polymer coating of drug particles
• Lipid or wax-based coating
• Cyclodextrin complexation
• Microencapsulation
• pH adjustment
• Use of flavor-blocking or bitterness-suppression agents

Taste masking must not materially impair dissolution, bioavailability, reconstitution, dose uniformity, or stability.

What excipient strategy offers the strongest commercial opportunity?

A three-tier strategy is commercially rational.

Product concept	Excipient strategy	Commercial value	Main regulatory or technical risk
Standard generic	Sucrose, saccharin, flavor, color	Low cost; closest to reference	Limited differentiation
Sugar-reduced product	Polyol or high-intensity sweetener system	Moderate; pharmacy and parent appeal	Osmolality, gastrointestinal tolerance, taste
Sugar-free, dye-free, taste-masked product	Non-sucrose sweetener, no synthetic color, encapsulated or coated drug	Highest differentiation	Bioequivalence, dissolution, manufacturing complexity
Ready-to-use suspension	Preserved aqueous suspension with optimized flavor	Convenience and adherence	Chemical and microbiological stability
Unit-dose product	Premeasured cups, oral syringes, or sachets	Lower dosing error and institutional value	Packaging cost and stability

The strongest near-term proposition is a sugar-free and dye-free dry powder with improved taste and an oral-syringe-compatible suspension. Dry powder remains preferable to a ready-to-use liquid where chemical stability, shipping weight, and shelf life are difficult.

What formulations are protected by patents?

The core clindamycin and clindamycin palmitate technology is mature, and the original composition-of-matter and early formulation patent positions have expired. The commercial protection available today is more likely to come from formulation-specific patents, manufacturing know-how, trademarks, trade dress, and regulatory execution than from the active ingredient.

Potentially protectable subject matter includes:

• Specific taste-masking particles
• Coated clindamycin palmitate particles
• Defined sweetener-to-flavor ratios
• Low-sucrose or sugar-free formulations
• Suspension stability systems
• Reconstitution methods
• Unit-dose packaging
• Improved powder-flow and content-uniformity processes
• Manufacturing controls that reduce degradation or agglomeration

A formulation patent would need claims tied to measurable technical results, such as reduced bitterness, improved dissolution, enhanced stability, or reduced sedimentation. Broad claims covering “a palatable clindamycin formulation” would face substantial validity risk because pediatric taste masking and oral suspensions contain extensive prior art.

What is the Orange Book status of clindamycin palmitate hydrochloride?

Cleocin Pediatric is an FDA-approved prescription product, historically identified under NDA 050162. The reference product's commercial exclusivity is long expired. Generic clindamycin palmitate hydrochloride oral solutions are approved through ANDAs where they meet applicable requirements for active ingredient, dosage form, strength, route, labeling, and bioequivalence.[1,2]

For a generic applicant, the key regulatory pathway is generally an ANDA with a Paragraph III certification if no relevant unexpired patent blocks approval, or a Paragraph IV certification if the applicant contests an Orange Book-listed patent. Because the foundational clindamycin patents expired decades ago, the principal Paragraph IV opportunity is limited to any later-listed formulation or method-of-use patents, not the basic active ingredient.

The FDA Orange Book should be reviewed for the current patent and exclusivity record associated with the reference NDA before filing strategy is finalized.[2]

When does clindamycin palmitate hydrochloride lose exclusivity?

Molecule-level exclusivity has already expired. The product is in the mature generic phase.

Exclusivity category	Status
New chemical entity exclusivity	Expired
Original composition-of-matter patents	Expired
Pediatric exclusivity	No current commercial barrier
Reference-product market exclusivity	Expired
Generic approval pathway	Established
Current protection opportunity	New formulation, process, packaging, or brand assets

A new excipient system would not automatically receive new chemical-entity exclusivity. Regulatory protection would depend on the approval pathway and the novelty of the clinical or formulation contribution. A 505(b)(2) strategy could be relevant for a materially different dosage form or formulation where reliance on existing findings is appropriate, while a conventional ANDA is generally more efficient for a pharmaceutically equivalent product.[3]

What generic entry risks exist for clindamycin palmitate hydrochloride?

Generic entry risk is high because:

1. The active ingredient is old and widely known.
2. The pediatric strength is standardized.
3. The product is a conventional oral liquid dosage form.
4. No biosimilar pathway applies.
5. Manufacturing can be performed by established oral-liquid suppliers.
6. Clinical differentiation is limited unless the formulation materially improves tolerability or adherence.

The principal barriers are technical rather than legal. They include bitter taste, powder flow, suspension uniformity, reconstitution instructions, preservative control, microbial limits, container compatibility, and stability after reconstitution.

A generic product with the same conventional excipients competes primarily on price and availability. A differentiated product can compete on pharmacy substitution resistance, hospital formulary preference, caregiver acceptance, and reduced dispensing complexity.

What FDA regulatory issues affect an excipient reformulation?

A new formulation must satisfy FDA requirements for inactive ingredients, product quality, stability, microbiological control, and bioequivalence. The FDA Inactive Ingredient Database can support selection of excipients previously used in approved products, but database presence does not eliminate the need for product-specific justification.[4]

The development program should address:

• Assay and degradation products
• Particle-size distribution
• Reconstitution time
• Redispersibility
• Dose uniformity throughout the bottle
• In-use stability after reconstitution
• Microbial limits and preservative effectiveness
• Container-closure integrity
• Syringe dose accuracy
• Dissolution and drug release
• Taste and mouthfeel
• Compatibility with household refrigeration and room-temperature storage

A sugar-free formulation may require a new preservative system because sucrose contributes to the physical characteristics of the powder but is not, by itself, a substitute for validated antimicrobial preservation. A preservative-free product may be possible as a unit-dose powder or single-use presentation, but it would carry higher packaging costs.

How strong is the patent estate for pediatric clindamycin oral solution?

The legacy patent estate is weak for the core product. The strongest defensible position would be a narrowly claimed formulation with demonstrated performance advantages.

Protection type	Expected strength
Active ingredient	Very weak; expired
Conventional 75 mg/5 mL solution	Weak
Basic sucrose-sweetened powder	Weak
Sugar-free composition	Moderate if narrowly claimed
Taste-masked particle technology	Moderate to strong if supported by data
Unit-dose packaging	Weak to moderate
Manufacturing process	Moderate if difficult to replicate
Trademark and brand positioning	Moderate, but non-patent
Supply-chain capability	Commercially important, not patent exclusivity

Trade secrets may be more valuable than patents for flavor ratios, coating parameters, granulation conditions, and release specifications. A company can combine a narrow formulation patent with confidential manufacturing controls to increase switching costs.

Which companies are challenging or supplying the market?

The market includes the branded reference product and multiple generic manufacturers or marketers. Generic availability has historically included products marketed under clindamycin palmitate hydrochloride for oral solution labels, with supplier participation varying by time and wholesaler.

The competitive field is fragmented. Key competitive dimensions are:

• Wholesale acquisition cost
• Back-order performance
• Bottle sizes
• Reconstitution shelf life
• Flavor acceptability
• Dye and sugar content
• Oral-syringe compatibility
• Hospital and public-health contracting
• Ability to maintain supply during antibiotic shortages

No biosimilar competition exists because clindamycin palmitate hydrochloride is a small-molecule antibacterial, not a biologic. Paragraph IV litigation is therefore not the central market risk. The more likely risks are ANDA competition, price erosion, manufacturing interruptions, and substitution by other pediatric antibiotics.

What licensing deals and partnership models are commercially relevant?

The most viable partnership models are formulation and manufacturing collaborations rather than molecule licensing.

Potential structures include:

• Licensing a proprietary taste-masking platform to a generic sponsor
• Contract development and manufacturing of dry powder for oral solution
• Co-development with a pediatric-focused specialty pharmaceutical company
• Regional licensing for sugar-free or dye-free products
• Hospital-contract supply agreements
• Private-label supply for pharmacy and telehealth channels

The reference product’s historical ownership does not create a meaningful contemporary licensing moat for the active ingredient. Value resides in differentiated formulation technology, reliable capacity, regulatory files, and commercial distribution.

What revenue exposure and market opportunities exist?

Public sources do not provide a reliable, current product-level revenue figure for clindamycin palmitate hydrochloride pediatric oral solution. Commercial opportunity should therefore be evaluated through market structure rather than a single revenue estimate.

The addressable segments are:

1. Retail pediatric prescriptions.
2. Hospital discharge prescriptions.
3. Medicaid and government purchasing.
4. Pediatric infectious-disease and dental practices.
5. Specialty pharmacies.
6. International markets where liquid antibiotic access is limited.
7. Institutional products requiring unit-dose packaging.

The highest-value segment is unlikely to be the lowest-cost generic. It is a differentiated product that reduces caregiver refusal, dosing errors, and pharmacy preparation burden. A premium must be supported by measurable improvements in taste, stability, supply continuity, or packaging.

What generic launch scenarios are most likely?

Low-cost standard generic

This product uses a reference-like excipient system and competes on price. It has the fastest development path and the lowest intellectual-property differentiation.

Sugar-free and dye-free generic

This product targets parents, pediatric clinics, and institutions with excipient preferences. It can command a modest premium if taste remains acceptable and the product is readily substituted or prescribed by name.

Premium taste-masked product

This product uses coated or encapsulated drug particles and a tailored flavor system. It has greater development cost but offers the best possibility of brand protection, formulation patents, and reduced direct price comparison.

Unit-dose or ready-to-use product

This product targets adherence and dosing accuracy. It may succeed in hospitals and discharge settings even if its cost is higher than a multidose bottle.

Key Takeaways

• Clindamycin palmitate hydrochloride pediatric oral solution is a mature, genericized product with expired core exclusivity.
• The reference formulation relies on sucrose, sodium saccharin, FD&C Yellow No. 6, and artificial flavor.
• Taste masking is the most important technical and commercial opportunity.
• Sugar-free and dye-free positioning can differentiate a product, but taste performance must remain acceptable.
• A dry powder for reconstitution is likely to remain the best stability and supply-chain platform.
• Formulation patents should focus on defined compositions and measurable performance results.
• Trade secrets covering coating, flavor, and manufacturing parameters may provide more practical protection than broad patents.
• The main market risks are price erosion, generic competition, supply interruptions, and poor pediatric adherence.
• No biosimilar pathway applies.
• The strongest launch concept is a stable, sugar-free, dye-free, taste-masked product compatible with oral syringes and pediatric dispensing workflows.

FAQs

Is clindamycin palmitate hydrochloride the same as clindamycin phosphate?

No. Clindamycin palmitate hydrochloride is an oral prodrug formulation, while clindamycin phosphate is commonly used in injectable and topical products. They are not interchangeable dosage forms.

Can a sugar-free clindamycin pediatric product use an ANDA?

Potentially. The pathway depends on whether the proposed product meets applicable sameness and bioequivalence requirements and whether the excipient changes are acceptable for the dosage form. A materially different formulation may require a 505(b)(2) pathway.[3]

Is clindamycin palmitate oral solution suitable for infants?

Use is determined by the prescribing information, age, weight, infection, and clinician judgment. Product development should include age-appropriate dosing devices and labeling rather than assume that one presentation is suitable for all pediatric age groups.[1]

Can taste masking create new patent protection?

Yes, but protection is more credible when claims cover a specific particle coating, excipient ratio, process, or measurable taste and dissolution result. Generic claims based only on the concept of improved palatability are vulnerable to prior-art challenges.

What is the best packaging for a differentiated product?

A dry powder bottle with a calibrated oral syringe is the most practical baseline. Unit-dose sachets or cups can improve dosing control but increase packaging and distribution costs.

References

1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2023). Cleocin Pediatric: Clindamycin palmitate hydrochloride powder for oral solution prescribing information. DailyMed. https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/

2. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (n.d.). Approved drug products with therapeutic equivalence evaluations, Orange Book. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/ob/

3. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2019). Applications covered by section 505(b)(2). https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information

4. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (n.d.). Inactive Ingredient Database. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/iig/index.cfm