List of Excipients in Branded Drug NIFEDIAC CC

« Back to Dashboard

Generic Drugs Containing NIFEDIAC CC

Company	Ingredient	NDC	Excipient
State of Florida DOH Central Pharmacy	nifedipine	53808-0388	ANHYDROUS LACTOSE
State of Florida DOH Central Pharmacy	nifedipine	53808-0388	CELLULOSE, MICROCRYSTALLINE
State of Florida DOH Central Pharmacy	nifedipine	53808-0388	ETHYLCELLULOSE
State of Florida DOH Central Pharmacy	nifedipine	53808-0388	HYPROMELLOSE

What are the Most Frequently-Used Excipients in NIFEDIAC CC?

# Of NDCs	Excipient
2	ANHYDROUS LACTOSE
2	CELLULOSE, MICROCRYSTALLINE
1	COLLOIDAL SILICON DIOXIDE
2	ETHYLCELLULOSE

Nifediac CC Excipient Strategy, Patent Position, and Commercial Opportunities

Last updated: September 24, 2026

Nifediac CC is an extended-release nifedipine tablet used primarily for hypertension and angina. Its commercial value depends less on active-ingredient exclusivity, which has expired, than on reliable control of nifedipine release, tablet manufacturability, bioequivalence, supply security, and differentiation in a mature generic market. The strongest opportunities are controlled-release reformulation, lower-cost excipient systems, manufacturing simplification, and differentiated dosage forms that preserve once-daily exposure.

What is Nifediac CC and how is it regulated?

Nifediac CC contains nifedipine, a dihydropyridine calcium-channel blocker. The product is an extended-release oral tablet available in multiple strengths, including 30 mg and 60 mg presentations in U.S. labeling. The tablet is intended to release nifedipine over an extended period and must be swallowed whole rather than crushed or chewed.[1]

Nifedipine is an established small-molecule active pharmaceutical ingredient. Nifediac CC is therefore subject to the abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA, framework when marketed as a generic equivalent to a listed reference product. The principal regulatory questions are:

• Pharmaceutical equivalence to the reference product.
• Bioequivalence under fed and fasting conditions.
• Control of extended-release performance.
• Absence of dose dumping.
• Stability under long-term and accelerated conditions.
• Consistency across commercial-scale batches.

Unlike a biologic, Nifediac CC has no biosimilar pathway or Purple Book exposure. Competitive products are generics, authorized generics, branded extended-release nifedipine products, and alternative calcium-channel blockers.

Which excipients are used in Nifediac CC?

Public product labeling identifies inactive ingredients used in the Nifediac CC tablet and film coating. The composition includes excipient classes commonly used in controlled-release oral dosage forms, such as fillers, binders, lubricants, coating agents, pigments, and release-controlling polymers.[1]

Excipient function	Representative ingredients identified in product labeling	Commercial purpose
Dilution and tablet body	Lactose monohydrate, microcrystalline cellulose	Provides tablet mass, compressibility, and dose uniformity
Binding and granulation	Povidone	Improves granule strength and tablet integrity
Release control	Hypromellose or related hydrophilic polymer	Controls water penetration and nifedipine diffusion
Lubrication	Magnesium stearate	Reduces adhesion and punch friction
Coating and processing	Polyethylene glycol, talc, titanium dioxide	Supports film formation, anti-tacking, opacity, and handling
Color identification	Iron oxide pigments	Distinguishes strengths and supports product identification

The exact grade, substitution range, polymer viscosity, particle-size distribution, and quantitative composition are commercially important but are not generally disclosed in the public label. Those parameters influence dissolution, compressibility, coating behavior, and scale-up risk.

How does the excipient system control nifedipine release?

Nifedipine is poorly water soluble and sensitive to light. Its extended-release performance depends on the interaction between the active ingredient, polymer matrix, tablet porosity, coating, and manufacturing process.

A hydrophilic polymer such as hypromellose typically controls release through hydration and gel formation. After ingestion, water enters the tablet, the polymer hydrates, and nifedipine diffuses through the hydrated matrix as the polymer gradually erodes. The release profile is affected by:

• Polymer viscosity grade.
• Polymer concentration.
• Tablet hardness and porosity.
• API particle size and surface area.
• Granulation endpoint.
• Lubricant level and blending time.
• Compression force.
• Film-coat weight gain.
• Dissolution medium and agitation conditions.

Small changes in these variables can alter early release, the middle portion of the dissolution curve, or terminal release. A formulation that passes a single dissolution point may still fail similarity requirements if its complete profile diverges from the reference product.

What excipient risks are most important for Nifediac CC?

The highest risks involve dissolution variability, API distribution, and manufacturing sensitivity.

Polymer variability

Hypromellose is available in multiple substitution patterns and viscosity grades. A change in supplier or grade can modify hydration rate and gel strength. Excipient specifications should therefore include viscosity, particle size, moisture, substitution characteristics, and microbial limits where applicable.

Lubricant overuse

Magnesium stearate can improve manufacturability but excessive concentration or prolonged blending may create hydrophobic particle films. That can slow wetting and alter nifedipine dissolution. Lubricant addition should be controlled by blend time and endpoint rather than by nominal concentration alone.

Lactose and moisture

Lactose can affect compactibility, residual moisture, and chemical stability. The selected grade should be assessed against the product's water activity, packaging configuration, and stability profile.

API particle size

Nifedipine particle size can influence content uniformity, dissolution, and the amount of drug available for release from the polymer matrix. Milling or micronization may be necessary, but tighter particle-size specifications can increase cost and supply risk.

Light protection

Nifedipine is light sensitive. The coating, bottle, blister, and secondary packaging must provide adequate protection. Titanium dioxide and colorants may support opacity, but packaging is a separate control and cannot be replaced by an opaque film alone without stability evidence.

What excipient strategy offers the best commercial opportunity?

The most attractive strategy is a controlled-release platform that reduces manufacturing variability while maintaining bioequivalence.

Develop a robust hydrophilic matrix

A matrix using a well-characterized hypromellose grade can reduce dependence on complex coating equipment. The formulation should be designed around a broad operating range for compression force, granulation moisture, and polymer variability. A robust design lowers batch rejection risk and improves contract manufacturing flexibility.

Evaluate polymer substitution

Potential alternatives include other hypromellose grades, hydroxypropyl cellulose, polyethylene oxide, or polymer blends. Substitution creates an opportunity to:

• Reduce excipient cost.
• Increase supplier competition.
• Improve dissolution robustness.
• Reduce sensitivity to compression force.
• Support a new formulation filing where meaningful differences exist.

The regulatory value of substitution depends on whether the change affects pharmaceutical equivalence, bioequivalence, labeling, or product performance.

Use direct compression where feasible

Direct compression can reduce processing steps, solvent exposure, energy use, and equipment requirements. It is commercially attractive if the API and polymer system provide adequate flow, content uniformity, and tablet strength. The principal risks are segregation, poor blend uniformity, and greater sensitivity to raw-material particle size.

Optimize film coating and packaging together

An optimized coating system can reduce coating time and improve identification, but light protection must be demonstrated through stability studies. A thinner coating may lower cost, while a high-opacity coating or foil-based blister may improve protection. The economic choice depends on packaging line speed, material cost, stability requirements, and distribution conditions.

What patents protect Nifediac CC and nifedipine extended release?

The original compound and early nifedipine product patents expired many years ago. Nifedipine is a mature generic active ingredient, and there is no meaningful remaining composition-of-matter exclusivity for the molecule in the United States.

Potentially relevant rights may still arise from:

• Extended-release matrix compositions.
• Specific polymer combinations.
• Multiparticulate or coated-particle systems.
• Manufacturing processes.
• Improved dissolution or reduced food-effect formulations.
• Fixed-dose combinations.
• New therapeutic uses.

A patent on a particular controlled-release formulation does not automatically block all nifedipine products. Its scope depends on the claims, prosecution history, validity, and whether the marketed product practices each limitation.

For Nifediac CC, the commercial patent analysis should distinguish between:

Rights category	Relevance to Nifediac CC
Nifedipine compound patents	Generally expired and no longer a barrier
Reference-product formulation patents	Potentially relevant only if listed and enforceable
Nifediac CC-specific formulation patents	Must be confirmed through current FDA and patent records
Method-of-use patents	Limited value unless the product label overlaps the claimed use
Manufacturing patents	Relevant if the commercial process practices the claims
Third-party polymer patents	Usually low risk for standard excipient use, but claim review is required

The FDA Orange Book is the primary source for patents listed against approved drug products. An ANDA product such as Nifediac CC may not have a standalone Orange Book patent estate equivalent to a branded NDA product. Patent risk should therefore be assessed against the reference listed drug, active formulation patents, and any third-party process rights.[2]

When does Nifediac CC lose exclusivity?

Nifediac CC has no significant remaining new chemical entity exclusivity. Any commercial protection is based on regulatory approval, manufacturing know-how, customer contracts, supply reliability, trademarks, and possible formulation or process rights.

Exclusivity category	Nifediac CC position
New chemical entity exclusivity	Expired
Orphan-drug exclusivity	Not applicable
Biologic exclusivity	Not applicable
Pediatric exclusivity	Not a current commercial barrier
Reference-product patent exclusivity	Historical or product-specific; requires current Orange Book review
Generic market protection	Depends on ANDA status, approval timing, and competitors
Trade-secret protection	Potentially important for process parameters and supplier controls

The key commercial question is not when nifedipine loses exclusivity. It already operates in a post-exclusivity market. The question is whether a manufacturer can achieve lower cost, dependable supply, or a differentiated product without creating additional regulatory burden.

Are Paragraph IV challenges relevant to Nifediac CC?

Paragraph IV certifications are most relevant when an ANDA applicant challenges an unexpired Orange Book-listed patent. Because nifedipine compound exclusivity is expired, a Paragraph IV strategy would generally target a remaining formulation, method-of-use, or manufacturing patent associated with a reference extended-release product.

Potential outcomes include:

• Immediate approval if no blocking patent remains.
• A 30-month stay after timely patent litigation.
• Litigation over claim scope or infringement.
• A negotiated launch date.
• Non-infringing formulation development.
• A Section viii statement removing a patented indication from labeling.

The practical value of a Paragraph IV challenge depends on the remaining patent term, market size, number of competing ANDAs, and the strength of the formulation claims. For a mature nifedipine product, a challenge is more likely to be commercially attractive when it enables first-filer or early-entry economics.

What formulation opportunities exist beyond Nifediac CC?

Lower-dose and pediatric formulations

Nifedipine is not generally positioned as a pediatric chronic-use product, but liquid or sprinkle formulations could address patients unable to swallow tablets. Such products would face stability, taste, dose-uniformity, and regulatory challenges.

Abuse-resistant or dose-dumping-resistant systems

A formulation with stronger resistance to crushing or rapid extraction could have a technical rationale, but the commercial need is less clear for nifedipine than for controlled-release analgesics or stimulants.

Fixed-dose combinations

Combining nifedipine with an angiotensin receptor blocker, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, or diuretic could improve adherence in hypertension. The commercial opportunity would depend on clinical demand, existing combination competition, and the ability to demonstrate bioequivalence or clinical equivalence.

Alternative delivery systems

Transdermal, buccal, or long-acting injectable nifedipine products would require substantially new development. Their value would depend on reducing hypotension risk, improving adherence, or controlling exposure more effectively than oral extended release. These are higher-risk opportunities than excipient optimization within the existing tablet platform.

What generic launch risks exist?

A new Nifediac CC-equivalent product could enter a crowded market with limited pricing power. Key risks include:

1. Failure to match the reference dissolution profile.
2. Food-related exposure differences.
3. Dose dumping under altered pH or alcohol conditions.
4. Inadequate light stability.
5. API particle-size drift.
6. Excipient supply interruption.
7. Multiple approved competitors entering simultaneously.
8. Pharmacy substitution pressure and low reimbursement.
9. Manufacturing costs that exceed the price ceiling.
10. Regulatory delay caused by formulation changes.

The most defensible launch strategy is a high-volume, low-complexity product with at least two qualified sources for critical excipients and API.

What licensing deals and litigation affect Nifediac CC?

Nifediac CC is not known primarily as a licensing-driven product. Its commercial model is more consistent with generic manufacturing, distribution, contract supply, or private-label arrangements. Potential deal structures include:

• Authorized generic supply.
• Private-label distribution.
• Contract manufacturing.
• Regional marketing rights.
• Co-development of a differentiated extended-release formulation.
• Technology licensing for polymer matrices or coating systems.

Publicly reported licensing or litigation involving the original nifedipine molecule is not a central current market driver. Any transaction or dispute should be evaluated at the product, manufacturer, and jurisdiction level rather than inferred from historic Procardia or Adalat litigation.

How strong is the Nifediac CC patent estate?

The patent estate is weak at the active-ingredient level and potentially moderate at the formulation or process level. Standard excipients such as hypromellose, lactose, microcrystalline cellulose, povidone, magnesium stearate, talc, and titanium dioxide generally do not create proprietary barriers by themselves.

A stronger estate would require claims directed to a specific combination of:

• Nifedipine particle-size distribution.
• Polymer grade and concentration.
• Defined dissolution limits.
• Manufacturing conditions.
• Reduced food effect.
• Improved photostability.
• A clinically meaningful pharmacokinetic advantage.

Even then, validity and enforceability would depend on prior art, obviousness, written description, enablement, and claim construction.

Key Takeaways

• Nifediac CC is a mature extended-release nifedipine product with no meaningful remaining compound exclusivity.
• Excipient strategy is central to commercial performance because release control, dissolution, and light stability determine regulatory success.
• Hypromellose, lactose, microcrystalline cellulose, povidone, magnesium stearate, and coating excipients support the tablet's manufacturing and release profile.
• The highest-value development work involves polymer optimization, API particle-size control, direct-compression feasibility, and packaging protection.
• Paragraph IV opportunities depend on any remaining formulation or method-of-use patents tied to the reference product.
• Biosimilar risk is not applicable; competition comes from generic nifedipine and alternative antihypertensive products.
• Commercial differentiation is more likely through supply reliability, lower cost, combination products, or patient-friendly dosage forms than through conventional excipient substitution alone.
• The patent estate is weak for nifedipine as a molecule and potentially stronger only where a specific formulation or process produces a defensible technical effect.

FAQs

Can hypromellose be replaced in a Nifediac CC formulation?

Yes, but substitution can materially change hydration, gel strength, dissolution, and bioequivalence. Any replacement requires formulation development and regulatory assessment.

Is nifedipine a high-value API for generic manufacturers?

Nifedipine is commercially established but generally price competitive. Value depends on volume, manufacturing efficiency, supply reliability, and the ability to avoid dissolution-related batch failures.

Does Nifediac CC have a proprietary excipient combination?

Public labeling identifies the excipient classes, but it does not establish that the combination is protected by an active patent. Proprietary value may instead reside in quantitative composition, process controls, and unpublished manufacturing know-how.

Can Nifediac CC tablets be crushed for patients with dysphagia?

No. Extended-release tablets should be swallowed whole unless a product-specific alternative is approved and labeled. Crushing can alter release and increase exposure over a shorter period.[1]

Is a liquid nifedipine product a realistic commercial opportunity?

It is technically possible but would require control of solubility, light sensitivity, dose uniformity, stability, taste, and dosing accuracy. It is a higher-development-risk opportunity than optimizing the existing extended-release tablet.

References

1. DailyMed. (n.d.). Nifediac CC: Nifedipine extended-release tablets, prescribing information. U.S. National Library of Medicine. 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. (2015). Waiver of in vivo bioavailability and bioequivalence studies for immediate-release solid oral dosage forms based on a biopharmaceutics classification system. Guidance for Industry. https://www.fda.gov/

4. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2017). ANDA submissions: Content and format of abbreviated new drug applications. Guidance for Industry. https://www.fda.gov/

5. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2015). Dissolution testing and acceptance criteria for immediate-release solid oral dosage form drug products containing high-solubility drug substances. Guidance for Industry. https://www.fda.gov/