List of Excipients in Branded Drug CLEOCIN PEDIATRIC

« Back to Dashboard

Generic Drugs Containing CLEOCIN PEDIATRIC

Company	Ingredient	NDC	Excipient
Pharmacia & Upjohn Company LLC	clindamycin palmitate hydrochloride	0009-0760	DIMETHICONE
Pharmacia & Upjohn Company LLC	clindamycin palmitate hydrochloride	0009-0760	ETHYLPARABEN
Pharmacia & Upjohn Company LLC	clindamycin palmitate hydrochloride	0009-0760	POLOXAMER 188
Pharmacia & Upjohn Company LLC	clindamycin palmitate hydrochloride	0009-0760	SUCROSE

What are the Most Frequently-Used Excipients in CLEOCIN PEDIATRIC?

# Of NDCs	Excipient
1	DIMETHICONE
1	ETHYLPARABEN
1	POLOXAMER 188
1	SUCROSE

CLEOCIN PEDIATRIC Excipient Strategy and Commercial Opportunities

Last updated: September 26, 2026

Cleocin Pediatric is an oral liquid formulation of clindamycin palmitate hydrochloride used in pediatric patients when oral clindamycin is indicated. Its commercial profile is mature and largely off-patent. The strongest opportunities are excipient-led: improved taste, sugar reduction, preservative optimization, dosing convenience, and dependable supply. Patent-based exclusivity is unlikely to support a premium strategy unless a new formulation produces clinically meaningful differentiation.

What is Cleocin Pediatric and which excipients define the product?

Cleocin Pediatric is clindamycin palmitate hydrochloride for reconstitution as an oral solution. The labeled concentration is 75 mg per 5 mL after reconstitution. It is intended for pediatric oral administration and is supplied as dry granules that are mixed with water before dispensing or use (Pfizer, 2023).

The reference formulation has historically used excipients associated with sweetness, flavor, preservation, suspension performance, and acceptable redispersion. Product labeling identifies the following inactive ingredients or formulation components:

Formulation function	Cleocin Pediatric excipient strategy
Active ingredient	Clindamycin palmitate hydrochloride
Sweetening	Sucrose and other sweetening components
Preservative	Sodium benzoate
High-intensity sweetener	Saccharin sodium
Vehicle and mouthfeel	Aqueous oral-solution system
Flavor	Proprietary flavor system
Dosage form	Powder for oral solution after reconstitution
Strength	75 mg per 5 mL
Storage	Controlled room-temperature handling under the approved labeling

The key formulation challenge is taste. Clindamycin is associated with a strong and persistent bitter or medicinal taste. Pediatric adherence can decline when the formulation leaves a bitter aftertaste, particularly during multi-day antibiotic treatment. A commercial successor therefore needs to improve palatability without reducing chemical stability, antimicrobial preservative performance, or dose accuracy.

What excipient functions are most important in a Cleocin Pediatric replacement?

A successful formulation must solve five technical problems: bitterness, reconstitution, chemical stability, microbiological control, and dosing accuracy.

Taste masking

Taste masking is the highest-value excipient objective. Candidate strategies include:

• Higher-performance flavor systems designed for bitter antibiotics.
• Sweetener combinations using sucrose, sucralose, acesulfame potassium, or polyols.
• Ion-exchange resins or polymeric taste-masking systems.
• Complexation or microencapsulation of clindamycin palmitate particles.
• pH adjustment to reduce perceived bitterness while maintaining stability.
• Flavor layering, including fruit flavors with cooling or lingering sweetness.

A simple increase in sucrose may improve initial taste but may not control the prolonged aftertaste associated with clindamycin. More sophisticated systems can create intellectual-property opportunities if they materially improve palatability and remain compatible with pediatric use.

Sugar reduction

A lower-sugar or sugar-free formulation would address concerns involving dental health, caloric intake, and use in children with diabetes or metabolic restrictions. The principal substitution options are:

Strategy	Commercial benefit	Technical risk
Polyol-based system	Lower sugar and improved mouthfeel	Gastrointestinal tolerance at high exposure
Sucralose or acesulfame potassium	Low-calorie sweetness	Bitter or metallic aftertaste
Combination sweetener	Better taste balance	More complex regulatory justification
Sugar-free suspension	Broad positioning	Requires robust physical stability
Reduced-sucrose solution	Easier formulation transition	Limited differentiation

A sugar-free claim would require careful control of osmolality, viscosity, preservative effectiveness, and acceptability in the target pediatric age range.

Preservative system

A multidose oral liquid requires microbiological control unless the product is converted to a preservative-free unit-dose format. Sodium benzoate is a conventional option, but the preservative system can become a differentiation point.

Potential alternatives include potassium sorbate, parabens, benzoate-sorbate combinations, or preservative-free packaging. Each option requires compatibility testing with pH, flavor compounds, container closure materials, and the active ingredient.

Sodium benzoate also raises pediatric exposure considerations. FDA has highlighted the need for careful evaluation of excipient exposure in pediatric products, particularly where repeated dosing or neonatal use is involved (U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2006).

Reconstitution and suspension performance

Although the product is described as a solution after reconstitution, the dry-powder presentation must disperse rapidly and uniformly. A replacement product should target:

• Short reconstitution time.
• Low foaming.
• Minimal clumping.
• Clear instructions for water volume.
• Reliable dose uniformity throughout the in-use period.
• Low sedimentation or rapid redispersion.
• Reduced dependence on vigorous shaking.

The choice of suspending agents, wetting agents, particle-size distribution, and granulation process affects patient and pharmacist usability. A formulation that requires extensive shaking or produces inconsistent dosing creates avoidable adherence and liability risks.

What commercial opportunities exist for Cleocin Pediatric excipient innovation?

The commercial opportunity is strongest in product repositioning rather than direct substitution.

1. Sugar-free pediatric clindamycin

A sugar-free product could target hospitals, pediatric practices, pharmacies, and caregivers seeking lower-sugar antibiotics. The opportunity is strongest if the formulation maintains acceptable taste without excessive polyol exposure.

Potential claims include:

• Sugar-free.
• Lower-calorie.
• Suitable for patients requiring reduced sucrose intake.
• Improved pediatric palatability.

These claims would need to match the final formulation and regulatory substantiation.

2. Improved-taste formulation

A taste-masked version could compete on adherence rather than price. The commercial value would be higher if comparative taste data showed a meaningful advantage over existing clindamycin liquids.

Useful development endpoints include:

• Initial bitterness.
• Aftertaste duration.
• Overall acceptability.
• Willingness to complete therapy.
• Caregiver-reported dosing difficulty.
• Pediatric age stratification.

Taste studies should distinguish between adult sensory panels and actual pediatric or caregiver experience. Pediatric drug-development guidance supports age-appropriate formulation design and acceptability assessment (U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2020).

3. Ready-to-use liquid

A ready-to-use product eliminates reconstitution errors and reduces pharmacy preparation time. It can be supplied in:

• Bottles with oral syringes.
• Small-volume unit-dose cups.
• Hospital-use bottles.
• Single-dose sachets or blow-fill-seal containers.

The main disadvantages are higher shipping weight, shorter stability requirements after manufacture, and greater packaging cost. A ready-to-use format is most attractive for hospital discharge prescriptions and high-volume pediatric pharmacy channels.

4. Unit-dose and adherence packaging

Unit-dose packaging can reduce dosing errors and improve administration in schools, hospitals, and childcare settings. A 5 mL unit dose would align directly with the labeled concentration, although higher-dose regimens would require multiple units.

Potential packaging assets include:

• Oral syringe-compatible bottles.
• Calendar dosing packs.
• Tamper-evident single-dose containers.
• Child-resistant closures.
• QR-linked instructions and storage information.

Packaging claims alone generally provide weaker patent protection than a novel formulation, but they can support commercial differentiation.

5. Preservative-free presentation

A preservative-free product could address caregiver concerns and institutional formulary preferences. The most practical route is a unit-dose or short-use package that limits microbial exposure.

The product would need a validated microbial control strategy, container-closure integrity, in-use stability, and clear disposal instructions. A preservative-free multidose bottle is technically more difficult and may require specialized packaging.

What formulations are most likely to support new patent protection?

A basic substitution of one sweetener for another is unlikely to produce durable patent protection. Stronger patent candidates include a defined combination of formulation elements that produces a measurable performance benefit.

Higher-value patent concepts

1. A specific clindamycin palmitate particle-size distribution with a defined taste-masking polymer.
2. A sugar-free formulation with a defined sweetener, flavor, buffer, and preservative system.
3. A stable ready-to-use liquid with a specified pH and in-use shelf life.
4. A preservative-free unit-dose formulation with container-closure protection.
5. A reconstitution system that improves dose uniformity and reduces sedimentation.
6. A multiparticulate formulation that delays release in the oral cavity while preserving gastrointestinal availability.
7. A formulation optimized for pediatric patients below a specified age or weight range.

Patent strength would depend on comparative data. Useful evidence includes taste scores, stability results, preservative-effectiveness testing, dose-uniformity data, dissolution or bioequivalence results, and reduced dosing variability.

How does FDA regulatory status affect a Cleocin Pediatric reformulation?

A company pursuing a generic equivalent would generally use an abbreviated new drug application if it can demonstrate pharmaceutical equivalence and bioequivalence to the reference product. A materially different excipient profile may require additional justification, particularly if the product changes from a solution to a suspension, introduces a new preservative, or uses a new delivery system.

A novel reformulation may require a section 505(b)(2) application if it relies partly on FDA’s prior findings for clindamycin while introducing a different dosage form, excipient system, strength, route, or other modification (U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 1999).

Key regulatory issues include:

Issue	Relevance
Pharmaceutical equivalence	Strength, dosage form, active ingredient, and route
Bioequivalence	Systemic exposure and product performance
Excipient safety	Pediatric exposure and daily intake
Microbial quality	Preservative effectiveness or sterile/unit-dose control
Stability	Reconstituted and in-use shelf life
Labeling	Dosing, storage, shaking, reconstitution, and discard instructions
Device compatibility	Oral syringe or dosing cup performance
Acceptability	Taste and administration burden

FDA’s inactive-ingredient database can help assess whether proposed excipients have precedent in approved products, but precedent does not eliminate the need for product-specific safety and quality evaluation (U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2024).

What is the Orange Book and patent status of Cleocin Pediatric?

Cleocin Pediatric is an old small-molecule product. Its commercial opportunity is unlikely to depend on active ingredient exclusivity. Clindamycin has been marketed for decades, and the principal product barriers are formulation execution, manufacturing consistency, taste, supply reliability, and market access.

The FDA Orange Book is the controlling source for current reference-product designation, therapeutic-equivalence ratings, and listed patents or exclusivity. Cleocin Pediatric should be evaluated under the relevant clindamycin oral-liquid or oral-solution listing rather than by assuming that all patents associated with other clindamycin dosage forms apply to the pediatric liquid (U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2024b).

Paragraph IV and generic entry risk

Generic entry risk is high for an old oral antibiotic unless a current formulation patent, regulatory exclusivity period, or litigation settlement creates a meaningful barrier. A Paragraph IV challenge would generally target any listed patent that is asserted to block approval. For a mature clindamycin pediatric product, the more likely competitive pathway is ordinary ANDA development rather than a prolonged patent dispute.

Biosimilar risk

Biosimilar risk is not relevant. Clindamycin is a chemically synthesized small molecule, not a biologic. Competitive risk comes from generic oral solutions, suspensions, capsules, and injectable products.

Which companies are likely to compete with a Cleocin Pediatric successor?

Competition can arise from several groups:

• Generic manufacturers supplying clindamycin palmitate oral solution.
• Manufacturers of clindamycin capsules used when children can swallow solid dosage forms.
• Compounding pharmacies preparing oral clindamycin liquids.
• Hospital pharmacies using extemporaneous formulations.
• Developers of pediatric antibiotic delivery technologies.
• Contract manufacturers offering ready-to-use oral liquids.

A differentiated product would compete against the lowest-cost generic on adherence, convenience, and supply reliability. The manufacturer would need a clear reason for pharmacies or health systems to accept a higher acquisition cost.

What manufacturing and intellectual-property barriers matter most?

The central manufacturing barriers are taste-masking reproducibility, particle-size control, reconstitution uniformity, preservative effectiveness, and packaging stability. These barriers can be more commercially relevant than composition-of-matter patents.

A defensible development package should include:

• Controlled particle-size distribution.
• Validated blending and granulation processes.
• Defined flavor and sweetener specifications.
• Container-closure compatibility.
• Reconstituted-product stability.
• In-use microbiological stability.
• Dose-delivery testing with the intended oral syringe.
• Scale-up data showing batch-to-batch sensory consistency.

Process patents may protect granulation, coating, encapsulation, or packaging methods. Trade-secret protection may be more durable for flavor ratios, coating parameters, and manufacturing controls that are difficult to reverse-engineer.

How strong is the commercial case for a new Cleocin Pediatric formulation?

The strongest business case is a differentiated pediatric product with one primary claim and one supporting advantage.

Product concept	Market potential	Development complexity	Likely differentiation
Low-cost generic equivalent	High volume, low margin	Low to moderate	Price and supply
Sugar-free oral liquid	Moderate	Moderate	Excipient profile
Improved-taste formulation	Moderate to high	Moderate to high	Adherence and acceptability
Ready-to-use liquid	Moderate	Moderate	Convenience
Preservative-free unit dose	Niche to moderate	High	Institutional and caregiver preference
Pediatric taste-masked multiparticulate	Moderate	High	Patent and clinical differentiation
Compounding-focused bulk product	Niche	Moderate	Pharmacy flexibility

Revenue exposure is likely to be limited by the mature generic market and low treatment cost. A premium product needs formulary, payer, or caregiver economics that justify higher pricing. Hospital contracting, pediatric infectious-disease networks, and specialty pharmacy distribution may offer better commercial positioning than a broad retail launch.

Key Takeaways

• Cleocin Pediatric is a mature clindamycin palmitate hydrochloride oral-liquid product.
• The principal excipient opportunity is improved palatability, followed by sugar reduction and dosing convenience.
• A sugar-free, taste-masked, ready-to-use, or preservative-free product could support commercial differentiation.
• Basic sweetener substitution is unlikely to provide strong patent protection.
• Stronger intellectual property would combine defined excipient systems with measurable taste, stability, or dosing benefits.
• Generic entry risk is high because clindamycin is an old small-molecule antibiotic.
• Biosimilar risk does not apply.
• The most defensible value proposition is formulation-led: better acceptance, fewer dosing errors, easier pharmacy handling, and reliable supply.

FAQs

Can a sugar-free clindamycin pediatric product be approved as a generic?

Yes, but the product must satisfy applicable pharmaceutical-equivalence and bioequivalence requirements or use an alternative regulatory pathway when formulation differences are material. Excipient safety, stability, taste, and microbiological quality must also be established.

Is sodium benzoate essential in Cleocin Pediatric?

No. Sodium benzoate is a preservative option, not an irreplaceable component. Any replacement must demonstrate microbiological protection, compatibility, pediatric acceptability, and adequate stability.

Can taste masking support a patent for clindamycin oral liquid?

Yes, if the formulation uses a novel and specifically claimed system that produces a measurable improvement. A generic flavor change without technical evidence is less likely to support durable patent protection.

Is a clindamycin oral suspension a direct substitute for Cleocin Pediatric oral solution?

Not automatically. The products may differ in particle size, excipients, dose uniformity, reconstitution instructions, and bioequivalence. Regulatory substitution depends on the approved product designation and therapeutic-equivalence status.

What is the most attractive commercial format for a new pediatric clindamycin product?

A ready-to-use, sugar-reduced or sugar-free product with validated taste improvement and an oral-syringe-compatible package offers the clearest differentiation. A preservative-free unit-dose version is more specialized but may have institutional value.

References

1. Pfizer Inc. (2023). Cleocin Pediatric: Clindamycin palmitate hydrochloride for oral solution prescribing information. Pfizer Laboratories.

2. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (1999). Applications covered by section 505(b)(2). FDA.

3. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2006). Guidance for industry: Nonclinical studies for the safety evaluation of pharmaceutical excipients. FDA.

4. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2020). Development of pediatric drugs for age groups: Guidance for industry. FDA.

5. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2024a). Inactive ingredient database. FDA.

6. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2024b). Approved drug products with therapeutic equivalence evaluations. FDA.