List of Excipients in Branded Drug PROMETHAZINE WITH CODEINE

« Back to Dashboard

Generic Drugs Containing PROMETHAZINE WITH CODEINE

Company	Ingredient	NDC	Excipient
PAI Holdings LLC	promethazine hydrochloride and codeine phosphate	0121-0928	ALCOHOL
PAI Holdings LLC	promethazine hydrochloride and codeine phosphate	0121-0928	ANHYDROUS CITRIC ACID
PAI Holdings LLC	promethazine hydrochloride and codeine phosphate	0121-0928	ASCORBIC ACID
PAI Holdings LLC	promethazine hydrochloride and codeine phosphate	0121-0928	FD&C BLUE NO. 1
PAI Holdings LLC	promethazine hydrochloride and codeine phosphate	0121-0928	FD&C RED NO. 3
PAI Holdings LLC	promethazine hydrochloride and codeine phosphate	0121-0928	MENTHOL
PAI Holdings LLC	promethazine hydrochloride and codeine phosphate	0121-0928	METHYLPARABEN

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

# Of NDCs	Excipient
15	ALCOHOL
13	ANHYDROUS CITRIC ACID
15	ASCORBIC ACID
2	CITRIC ACID MONOHYDRATE
5	D&C RED NO. 33
5	EDETATE DISODIUM
15	FD&C BLUE NO. 1

Promethazine With Codeine Excipient Strategy and Commercial Opportunities

Last updated: October 18, 2026

Promethazine with codeine is an established prescription oral solution containing promethazine hydrochloride and codeine phosphate, commonly at 6.25 mg and 10 mg, respectively, per 5 mL. The active ingredients are mature and generally lack strong composition-of-matter exclusivity. Commercial differentiation therefore depends on excipient selection, manufacturing reliability, controlled-substance compliance, supply continuity, dosing systems, and regulatory execution.

The strongest opportunities are alcohol-free, sugar-reduced or sugar-free, dye-free, unit-dose, and stability-optimized oral solutions for adult use. Pediatric positioning is commercially and legally constrained because of opioid-related respiratory-depression risks and promethazine restrictions in young children.

What formulation does promethazine with codeine use?

The product is an oral solution designed to deliver two pharmacologically active ingredients in a homogeneous liquid dosage form.

Attribute	Typical product characteristic
Active ingredients	Promethazine hydrochloride and codeine phosphate
Typical strength	Promethazine HCl 6.25 mg and codeine phosphate 10 mg per 5 mL
Dosage form	Oral solution
Controlled substance	Codeine-containing prescription product; federal scheduling depends on formulation and codeine concentration
Primary excipient functions	Sweetening, taste masking, viscosity control, pH adjustment, preservation, coloring, flavoring
Main quality risks	Dose uniformity, precipitation, microbial growth, chemical degradation, taste, container accuracy
Main commercial buyers	Retail pharmacies, wholesalers, health systems, independent pharmacies, and contract purchasers

Published labels for promethazine-codeine oral solutions have used combinations of sucrose, glycerin, flavoring, sodium benzoate, buffering agents, purified water, and colorants. The inactive-ingredient profile varies by manufacturer and product listing. A formulation assessment must therefore be performed against the target product’s current FDA-approved labeling and Drug Product Database record rather than against a generic ingredient assumption (U.S. Food and Drug Administration [FDA], n.d.-a).

Which excipients are most important in promethazine with codeine?

Sweeteners and taste masking

Taste is the central formulation problem. Promethazine is bitter, while codeine contributes a strong bitter and opioid-associated taste. Sucrose remains effective because it combines sweetness with body and mouthfeel. Glycerin and sorbitol can support sweetness and viscosity, but polyols may create gastrointestinal tolerance issues at higher concentrations.

Potential strategies include:

• Sucrose-based formulation for conventional taste performance.
• Sucrose-reduced formulation for diabetic-use positioning.
• Sugar-free formulation using a blend of sucralose, acesulfame potassium, sorbitol, glycerin, or other approved sweeteners.
• Flavor systems using berry, cherry, grape, or proprietary masking flavors.
• Complexation or polymeric taste-masking systems, subject to drug-release and assay-impact studies.

Taste masking must not materially reduce dose accuracy or create precipitation during storage. A formulation that tastes better but produces sediment, adsorption to the container, or content nonuniformity will not offer a viable commercial advantage.

Alcohol-free systems

Some legacy cough and cold oral liquids contain ethanol as a cosolvent or flavor carrier. An alcohol-free product can address pharmacy substitution preferences, institutional formulary restrictions, and consumer concerns. Removing ethanol may require reformulation of:

• Flavor oils.
• Promethazine and codeine solubilization.
• Preservative performance.
• Viscosity.
• Container compatibility.
• Long-term chemical stability.

An alcohol-free product should not be positioned as safer for unsupervised or pediatric use. The opioid and promethazine risks remain.

Preservatives

Multidose oral solutions require microbial-control strategies unless the product is manufactured and packaged as a preservative-free unit dose. Sodium benzoate and related preservatives may be used depending on pH and formulation design. Preservative efficacy must be demonstrated under USP <51> or the applicable regulatory standard.

A preservative-free, single-use presentation can eliminate some preservative concerns but increases packaging cost and may reduce retail convenience. It is more commercially relevant for hospital, institutional, and controlled dispensing channels than for conventional retail bottles.

pH and buffering agents

Promethazine and codeine stability depends on pH, ionic strength, temperature, and exposure to light. Citrate, phosphate, or other buffering systems may be evaluated to control pH. The formulation must balance:

1. Active-ingredient stability.
2. Preservative effectiveness.
3. Taste.
4. Container compatibility.
5. Color stability.
6. Absence of precipitation.

A low-pH formulation may improve preservative performance but increase sourness and affect flavor acceptance. Excessive buffering can also complicate manufacturing and cleaning validation.

Viscosity modifiers

Viscosity affects pourability, dose retention on the measuring device, and resistance to accidental spillage. Glycerin, sorbitol, cellulose derivatives, and other viscosity modifiers may be considered. Excessive viscosity creates dosing errors, particularly with household spoons and oral syringes.

The commercial value of viscosity engineering is highest when paired with a dosing device calibrated in milliliters. A thick liquid without a calibrated syringe does not reliably improve dose control.

Colorants and flavoring agents

Color and flavor can improve product identity and reduce perceived bitterness. Dye-free positioning may be more commercially useful than color-based differentiation because pharmacies and institutional purchasers may prefer simpler excipient profiles.

Colorants can also create technical and regulatory burdens:

• Batch-to-batch shade control.
• Light sensitivity.
• Excipient intolerance.
• Labeling complexity.
• Consumer preference risk.

A dye-free, alcohol-free product with a stable berry or cherry flavor would offer a straightforward line-extension concept, provided it maintains acceptable taste and stability.

What excipient strategy is best for commercial launch?

The preferred strategy is a platform with two presentations rather than one universal formulation.

Product concept	Target channel	Commercial rationale	Principal risk
Conventional sucrose oral solution	Retail pharmacy	Familiar sensory profile and lower development complexity	Limited differentiation
Sugar-free, alcohol-free solution	Retail and specialty pharmacy	Addresses excipient preferences and formulary restrictions	Taste and stability
Dye-free oral solution	Retail, institutional	Simplifies excipient profile	Lower visual differentiation
Unit-dose oral solution	Hospitals and controlled dispensing	Improves dose control and reduces bottle handling	Higher packaging cost
Oral-syringe kit	Retail and institutional	Reduces measuring errors	Device qualification and packaging cost
Low-volume concentrated solution	Specialty channels	Reduces shipping and storage volume	Higher overdose risk if mismeasured; requires careful regulatory assessment

A standard-concentration, alcohol-free, dye-free liquid supplied with an oral syringe is the most defensible commercial concept. A sugar-free version could follow if taste and preservative performance are acceptable.

A concentrated product has a weaker risk-benefit profile. Increasing the amount of codeine and promethazine per milliliter can create medication-error and diversion concerns. Concentration changes may also trigger a more complex regulatory assessment and should not be treated as a routine line extension.

What FDA restrictions affect commercial use?

FDA risk controls materially narrow the addressable market.

Promethazine carries a boxed warning concerning respiratory depression in children younger than two years. Codeine-containing products carry opioid-related respiratory-depression risks, and FDA has restricted the use of prescription opioid cough and cold medicines containing codeine or hydrocodone in patients younger than 18 years because the risks outweigh the benefits for cough treatment (FDA, 2018).

Other commercial constraints include:

• Contraindication or strong restriction in young children.
• Risk in patients with respiratory compromise.
• Risk associated with ultra-rapid CYP2D6 metabolism of codeine.
• Sedation and impaired driving.
• Drug interactions with central nervous system depressants.
• State-level restrictions that can exceed federal requirements.
• Controlled-substance inventory, ordering, recordkeeping, and theft-prevention obligations.

The commercial target should therefore be adult patients for narrowly defined prescription use, not pediatric cough treatment.

What patents protect promethazine with codeine formulations?

The active ingredients are longstanding drugs, and the core combination is not generally protected by a meaningful new chemical-entity patent estate. Commercial protection is more likely to arise from:

• Specific excipient combinations.
• Sugar-free or alcohol-free systems.
• Taste-masking technologies.
• Preservative systems.
• Container-closure configurations.
• Unit-dose packaging.
• Dosing-device integration.
• Manufacturing processes.
• Stability improvements.

A formulation patent must claim a genuine technical distinction, such as a defined stability profile, improved dose uniformity, reduced precipitation, or validated taste-masking performance. Broad claims covering routine sweeteners, buffers, preservatives, or flavors face substantial obviousness and written-description risks.

The most defensible intellectual-property package would combine:

1. A narrow composition claim.
2. Stability and impurity data.
3. Container-closure claims.
4. Device or unit-dose packaging claims.
5. Trade-secret manufacturing parameters.
6. Trademark protection for the product and presentation.

What is the Orange Book and generic-entry position?

The Orange Book identifies FDA-approved drug products and patent or exclusivity information submitted for applicable listed drugs. For an established promethazine-codeine oral solution, the principal entry route is generally an abbreviated new drug application, subject to the applicable reference-listed-drug and bioequivalence framework (FDA, n.d.-b).

The relevant commercial questions are:

Issue	Likely impact
Active patent blocking	Usually limited for an old combination
Paragraph IV litigation	More likely for a newly patented formulation than for the legacy product
30-month stay risk	Relevant only if a listed patent is challenged under applicable rules
Regulatory exclusivity	Generally limited unless a new formulation or other qualifying innovation is approved
Generic substitution	Likely to create price pressure where state substitution rules permit
Controlled-substance compliance	Remains a practical barrier even without patent protection

A company launching a new excipient formulation should not assume that FDA approval creates durable market exclusivity. A formulation may be approved while generic or alternative products remain available. Commercial durability must come from manufacturing reliability, channel access, product differentiation, and enforceable intellectual property.

What Paragraph IV and litigation risks exist?

Paragraph IV risk is concentrated in newly patented formulation products, not in the old active-ingredient combination itself. A competitor could challenge patents covering:

• Sugar-free compositions.
• Alcohol-free solubilization systems.
• Taste-masking complexes.
• Extended stability.
• Unit-dose packaging.
• Dosing-device integration.

Patent litigation would likely focus on claim construction, obviousness, enablement, written description, and whether the accused product practices the claimed excipient ranges. A formulation patent with only routine excipient substitutions is vulnerable. Data demonstrating unexpected stability, reduced degradation, improved content uniformity, or clinically meaningful administration accuracy would strengthen the estate.

Settlement agreements could include delayed launch, authorized generic supply, license rights, or geographic limitations. No settlement should be assumed without a product-specific patent and litigation review.

How strong is the patent estate for promethazine with codeine?

The legacy product’s patent strength is low relative to newer branded pharmaceuticals because the active ingredients and oral-solution concept are old. The strongest protectable assets are likely to be technical improvements rather than the drug combination itself.

Asset	Relative protection potential
Promethazine-codeine combination	Low
Conventional sucrose solution	Low
Alcohol-free formulation	Moderate if supported by non-obvious stability data
Sugar-free formulation	Low to moderate
Taste-masking system	Moderate to high if technically differentiated
Unit-dose container	Moderate
Oral-syringe packaging	Moderate, but design-around risk is high
Manufacturing process	Moderate as trade secret; patent value depends on claim scope
Brand and trade dress	Moderate commercial value

Trade secrets may be more durable than patents for mixing order, pH adjustment, flavor incorporation, filtration, filling, and cleaning parameters. They do not prevent independent development by competitors.

What manufacturing and supply-chain barriers affect the opportunity?

Codeine is a controlled substance, so manufacturing requires controlled-substance registration, secure storage, inventory reconciliation, diversion controls, and qualified supply-chain partners. These obligations create barriers that are independent of patent protection.

Manufacturing risks include:

• Controlled-substance procurement interruptions.
• Supplier qualification for codeine phosphate.
• Assay and content-uniformity failures.
• Preservative efficacy failures.
• Flavor and color variability.
• Bottle or closure adsorption.
• Leakage and child-resistant packaging performance.
• Product recalls caused by measuring-device or labeling errors.
• Pharmacy shortages caused by limited manufacturing capacity.

A supplier with an established controlled-substance infrastructure has a commercial advantage over a formulation company without Schedule II-V operating capability. Contract manufacturing, licensing, or co-development may be faster than building a new facility.

Which commercial opportunities are most attractive?

Adult-focused line extension

An adult-labeled, alcohol-free, dye-free product is the clearest opportunity. The formulation can target pharmacies and prescribers that prefer a simpler inactive-ingredient profile.

Institutional and hospital packaging

Unit-dose cups or premeasured oral syringes can reduce pharmacy handling and support controlled administration. The economics depend on packaging throughput and procurement contracts.

Supply-continuity products

The market may reward reliable supply more than marginal formulation differentiation. A manufacturer with validated raw-material sources, redundant filling capacity, and strong controlled-substance controls can compete effectively even with limited patent protection.

Authorized-generic or private-label supply

An established manufacturer can supply private-label products to wholesalers, pharmacy chains, and distributors. This model reduces brand-building costs but increases price competition.

International opportunities

Geographic expansion is highly jurisdiction-specific. Codeine scheduling, prescription status, pediatric labeling, opioid controls, and approved excipients vary across countries. A U.S. formulation cannot be assumed to qualify for Canada, the European Union, or other markets without local regulatory review.

What generic launch scenarios should investors expect?

The most likely launch scenarios are:

1. Price-led generic entry: Multiple manufacturers compete on cost with conventional oral solutions.
2. Excipient-differentiated entry: A sugar-free, alcohol-free, or dye-free product gains pharmacy and institutional preference.
3. Supply-led share capture: A reliable manufacturer takes share during competitor shortages.
4. Packaging-led differentiation: Unit-dose or oral-syringe delivery gains institutional accounts.
5. Limited premium pricing: Possible only where the product demonstrates a clear dispensing, stability, or excipient advantage.

Revenue exposure is usually tied to prescription volume, payer reimbursement, channel contracts, and supply availability. Public product-level revenue is often not separately disclosed for generic promethazine-codeine products. Forecasts should therefore use prescription volume, average selling price, generic substitution, and controlled-substance channel limits rather than branded-drug peak-sales assumptions.

Key Takeaways

• Promethazine with codeine is a mature oral-solution combination with limited core patent protection.
• Excipient strategy is the primary route to differentiation.
• Alcohol-free, dye-free, sugar-free, and unit-dose presentations offer the clearest commercial opportunities.
• Taste masking, pH control, preservative performance, and dose accuracy are the main technical priorities.
• Pediatric positioning is commercially restricted by FDA opioid and promethazine safety requirements.
• Controlled-substance manufacturing and supply continuity create meaningful practical barriers to entry.
• Formulation patents require more than routine substitution of sweeteners, flavors, preservatives, or buffers.
• The strongest product concept is an adult-focused, alcohol-free, dye-free oral solution packaged with a calibrated oral syringe.
• Generic price competition will remain substantial unless the product secures institutional contracts, supply reliability, or defensible formulation claims.

FAQs

Is promethazine with codeine still commercially viable?

Yes, but primarily as a mature generic or differentiated oral-solution product. Commercial success depends on supply reliability, regulatory compliance, formulation usability, and channel access rather than strong active-ingredient exclusivity.

Can a sugar-free promethazine-codeine product obtain patent protection?

Potentially, but sugar replacement alone may be considered obvious. Patent strength improves when the formulation demonstrates unexpected stability, taste masking, dose uniformity, or preservative performance.

Is alcohol-free promethazine with codeine safer?

Alcohol removal may address excipient preferences and certain formulation concerns, but it does not eliminate opioid respiratory-depression, sedation, misuse, or drug-interaction risks.

Can promethazine with codeine be marketed for children?

Pediatric marketing is heavily restricted. FDA warnings prohibit or limit use in young children and restrict prescription opioid cough and cold products containing codeine in patients younger than 18 years for cough treatment (FDA, 2018).

What is the best package for a new product?

A child-resistant multidose bottle with a calibrated oral syringe is the most practical retail format. Unit-dose packaging is more suitable for hospitals and controlled dispensing environments.

References

1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2018). FDA requires labeling changes for prescription opioid cough and cold medicines to limit their use to adults 18 years and older. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-requires-labeling-changes-prescription-opioid-cough-and-cold-medicines-limit-their-use

2. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (n.d.-a). Drug labels and inactive ingredients database. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/iig/index.cfm

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

4. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (n.d.-c). Promethazine hydrochloride and codeine phosphate oral solution prescribing information. DailyMed. https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/

5. United States Pharmacopeia. (2024). General chapter <51>: Antimicrobial effectiveness testing. United States Pharmacopeial Convention.