List of Excipients in Branded Drug CARBOCAINE WITH NEO-COBEFRIN

« Back to Dashboard

Generic Drugs Containing CARBOCAINE WITH NEO-COBEFRIN

Company	Ingredient	NDC	Excipient
Septodont Inc	mepivacaine hydrochloride and levonordefrin	0362-0931	EDETATE DISODIUM
Septodont Inc	mepivacaine hydrochloride and levonordefrin	0362-0931	HYDROCHLORIC ACID
Septodont Inc	mepivacaine hydrochloride and levonordefrin	0362-0931	POTASSIUM METABISULFITE
Septodont Inc	mepivacaine hydrochloride and levonordefrin	0362-0931	SODIUM CHLORIDE
Septodont Inc	mepivacaine hydrochloride and levonordefrin	0362-0931	SODIUM HYDROXIDE

What are the Most Frequently-Used Excipients in CARBOCAINE WITH NEO-COBEFRIN?

# Of NDCs	Excipient
1	EDETATE DISODIUM
1	HYDROCHLORIC ACID
1	POTASSIUM METABISULFITE
1	SODIUM CHLORIDE
1	SODIUM HYDROXIDE

Carbocaine With Neo-Cobefrin Excipient Strategy and Commercial Opportunities

Last updated: October 5, 2026

Carbocaine with Neo-Cobefrin is a dental local anesthetic combining mepivacaine hydrochloride with levonordefrin, a vasoconstrictor. Its core formulation is mature, low-complexity, and likely exposed to generic competition. Commercial opportunity is therefore concentrated in cartridge engineering, sulfite management, supply reliability, packaging, and differentiated delivery rather than in composition-of-matter patents.

The reference formulation generally contains:

• Mepivacaine hydrochloride: 2%
• Levonordefrin: 1:20,000, equivalent to approximately 0.05 mg/mL
• Sodium chloride for tonicity
• Water for injection
• pH-adjusting agents
• Sodium metabisulfite or a comparable sulfite antioxidant system for the vasoconstrictor-containing product

A 1.8 mL dental cartridge contains approximately 36 mg of mepivacaine hydrochloride and 0.09 mg of levonordefrin. The exact commercial presentation and inactive-ingredient statement must be confirmed against the current approved labeling and product-specific regulatory records. [1]

What is Carbocaine With Neo-Cobefrin used for?

Carbocaine with Neo-Cobefrin is used for local, infiltration, or conduction anesthesia in dentistry. Mepivacaine blocks sodium channels and suppresses nerve impulse transmission. Levonordefrin produces local vasoconstriction, which can reduce systemic absorption and prolong anesthetic effect.

The product is positioned between plain mepivacaine and more strongly vasoconstricted dental anesthetic products containing epinephrine. Its clinical rationale is to provide longer local effect than plain mepivacaine while offering a different sympathomimetic profile from epinephrine-containing products.

Core product attributes

Attribute	Carbocaine with Neo-Cobefrin
Local anesthetic	Mepivacaine hydrochloride
Vasoconstrictor	Levonordefrin
Typical anesthetic concentration	2%
Typical vasoconstrictor ratio	1:20,000
Primary route	Dental injection
Dosage form	Sterile injectable solution in dental cartridges or vials
Preservative strategy	Vasoconstrictor-containing product generally requires antioxidant protection
Primary commercial channel	Dental distributors, dental-service organizations, clinics
Main substitutes	Plain mepivacaine, lidocaine with epinephrine, articaine with epinephrine, prilocaine with felypressin outside the U.S.

What excipients are used in Carbocaine With Neo-Cobefrin?

The commercial excipient system has four functional roles: tonicity, oxygen control, pH control, and sterile aqueous delivery.

Sodium chloride

Sodium chloride adjusts osmolality toward physiological conditions. It is a low-cost, familiar excipient with limited formulation differentiation potential. Changes in concentration can affect injection comfort, osmolality, and product comparability.

Sodium metabisulfite

Sodium metabisulfite is used as an antioxidant in many vasoconstrictor-containing injectable products. Levonordefrin is susceptible to oxidation, particularly in the presence of oxygen, light, trace metals, and elevated temperature. Sulfite reduces oxidative degradation and helps preserve vasoconstrictor potency during shelf life.

Sulfites also create a commercial limitation. Product labeling for sulfite-containing injectable products typically warns that sulfites can cause allergic-type reactions, including anaphylactic symptoms, in susceptible individuals, particularly in patients with asthma. [1]

Water for injection

Water for injection is the vehicle. It must meet compendial requirements for sterility, endotoxins, particulate matter, and chemical quality. The vehicle itself has little differentiation value, but manufacturing controls are important because the product is administered parenterally into highly vascular oral tissue.

pH adjusters

Hydrochloric acid and sodium hydroxide may be used to establish the target pH. pH affects:

• Mepivacaine stability
• Levonordefrin oxidation
• Injection discomfort
• Precipitation risk
• Container-closure compatibility

The pH must balance chemical stability with patient tolerability. Excessive alkalinity can increase the proportion of unionized local anesthetic and potentially intensify injection discomfort or instability.

What formulation patents protect Carbocaine With Neo-Cobefrin?

The principal formulation is based on old active ingredients and conventional injectable excipients. The commercial opportunity is unlikely to depend on an enforceable composition-of-matter patent covering mepivacaine, levonordefrin, sodium chloride, water, or standard pH adjustment.

The likely intellectual-property position is:

IP category	Commercial relevance
Mepivacaine composition-of-matter patent	Expired or commercially irrelevant
Levonordefrin composition-of-matter patent	Expected to be expired
Basic combination formulation	Weak patentability and likely public-domain technology
Sulfite-stabilized injectable formulation	Limited patent differentiation
Dental cartridge and packaging	Potential device or process claims
Low-extractables container closure	Potential formulation-device combination claims
Manufacturing process	Potential trade-secret and process-control value
Novel sulfite-free formulation	Stronger possibility for follow-on patenting
New concentration or presentation	Possible formulation, method, or device claims

No active patent number, Paragraph IV challenge, settlement agreement, or current patent litigation is established by the FDA labeling materials cited here. The absence of an identified patent barrier does not create regulatory approval rights. A follow-on sponsor would still need to establish pharmaceutical equivalence, bioequivalence where applicable, sterility, container-closure suitability, and manufacturing compliance.

How strong is the patent estate for Carbocaine With Neo-Cobefrin?

The patent estate is weak for the legacy formulation and potentially stronger for redesigned products.

A conventional 2% mepivacaine and 1:20,000 levonordefrin solution has limited claim scope because:

1. Both active ingredients are old.
2. Sodium chloride, water for injection, and pH adjusters are standard excipients.
3. Sulfite antioxidant systems are widely used in vasoconstrictor-containing injections.
4. Dental cartridges are established delivery systems.
5. The clinical use is a conventional dental anesthesia indication.

Patent strength can improve through a technically differentiated formulation, such as:

• A verified sulfite-free levonordefrin formulation
• A lower-oxygen headspace system
• A novel antioxidant combination
• A low-pH or buffered system with improved stability
• A cartridge with reduced extractables and adsorption
• A low-dead-space delivery device
• A preservative-free, single-use multidose-control system
• A formulation with improved stability under temperature excursions

The strongest protection would likely combine formulation claims with container-closure, manufacturing, and method-of-use claims. A single broad composition claim would face substantial prior-art risk.

What formulation opportunities exist for generic or follow-on manufacturers?

Sulfite-free or reduced-sulfite product

A sulfite-free product would address a clinically recognizable labeling concern. The technical challenge is maintaining levonordefrin stability without relying on the conventional sulfite system.

Potential approaches include:

• Oxygen-reduced filling
• Nitrogen overlay
• Improved container-closure oxygen barrier
• Light-protective packaging
• Chelating agents where compatible
• Alternative antioxidants
• Lower residual oxygen in the cartridge
• Optimized pH and storage conditions

Any alternative antioxidant would require close evaluation for injection safety, compatibility, extractables, degradation products, and regulatory acceptability.

Cartridge optimization

Dental cartridges are a major commercial differentiation point despite limited active-ingredient novelty. Improvements could include:

• 1.7 mL and 1.8 mL fill-volume options
• Reduced residual volume
• Better plunger movement
• Lower breakage rates
• Improved needle penetration
• Compatible elastomer formulations
• Lower extractables and leachables
• Tamper-evident packaging
• Improved labeling readability
• Bar-code and serialization support

Cartridge performance can influence chairside speed, waste, dosing accuracy, and clinician acceptance.

Stability and supply-chain formulation

A manufacturer could seek a longer shelf life or improved temperature-excursion profile. This would require evidence that the product maintains:

• Mepivacaine assay
• Levonordefrin assay
• Related substances within limits
• pH
• Sterility
• Particulate control
• Container-closure integrity
• Functional cartridge performance

A formulation that tolerates distribution variability could be valuable in dental markets with fragmented purchasing and inconsistent storage conditions.

What is the FDA regulatory status of Carbocaine With Neo-Cobefrin?

The product is an FDA-regulated sterile injectable local anesthetic used in dentistry. A follow-on sponsor would need to select the correct regulatory pathway based on the reference product’s current regulatory status and listing.

Potential routes include:

Regulatory route	Potential use
ANDA under section 505(j)	Product is therapeutically equivalent to an eligible reference listed drug
505(b)(2) application	Product differs in formulation, concentration, device, or clinical attributes
NDA	New formulation or delivery system requires a full application
Drug-device combination strategy	Cartridge or injector contributes material performance characteristics

A conventional generic version would face scrutiny over active-ingredient identity, strength, dosage form, route, sterility, impurities, pH, osmolality, preservative or antioxidant content, and container closure. Changes to levonordefrin concentration, excipient composition, cartridge volume, or dosing instructions could move the product away from a straightforward ANDA strategy.

What is the Orange Book status and exclusivity timeline?

The active-ingredient exclusivity period for mepivacaine and levonordefrin is long expired. No meaningful new chemical entity exclusivity should remain for this legacy combination.

The commercial exclusivity analysis is therefore driven by:

• Current Orange Book listing status
• Reference listed drug eligibility
• Any unexpired formulation or method-of-use patents
• Regulatory exclusivity attached to a later-approved product
• Product-specific supply or distribution arrangements

The Orange Book identifies approved drug products and patent information submitted under FDA requirements. It does not itself guarantee that every commercial barrier has been captured, particularly for device, manufacturing, trade-secret, or contract rights. [2]

Patent and exclusivity timeline

Event	Likely status
Mepivacaine approval	Historical
Levonordefrin approval in dental combination	Historical
New chemical entity exclusivity	Expired
Basic compound patents	Expired or commercially immaterial
Legacy formulation protection	Likely expired or weak
Paragraph IV risk	Dependent on any currently listed patent
Biosimilar exclusivity	Not applicable
Generic entry	Potentially feasible if a current reference pathway is available

Which companies are challenging Carbocaine With Neo-Cobefrin?

No material current Paragraph IV challenge or high-profile patent litigation is identified in the FDA materials cited for this product. The market is more likely to experience ordinary generic competition, private-label supply, and authorized distribution arrangements than litigation-driven entry.

Potential competitors include manufacturers and distributors of:

• Plain mepivacaine hydrochloride
• Mepivacaine with vasoconstrictor
• Lidocaine with epinephrine
• Articaine with epinephrine
• Other dental local anesthetic cartridges

The relevant competitive set is determined by clinical substitution, not merely by identical active ingredients. Dentists may select products based on onset, duration, hemostasis, cardiovascular considerations, cartridge availability, price, and distributor service.

How does Carbocaine With Neo-Cobefrin compare with competing dental anesthetics?

Product category	Main advantage	Main limitation
Carbocaine with Neo-Cobefrin	Mepivacaine-based anesthesia with levonordefrin vasoconstriction	Sulfite and sympathomimetic considerations
Plain mepivacaine	No vasoconstrictor and simple formulation	Shorter duration and less hemostasis
Lidocaine with epinephrine	Broad familiarity and strong hemostasis	Epinephrine-related cardiovascular effects
Articaine with epinephrine	Strong diffusion and widespread dental use	Epinephrine and formulation-specific precautions
Prilocaine-based products	Alternative anesthetic profile	Methemoglobinemia considerations at high exposure

Carbocaine with Neo-Cobefrin has the strongest commercial rationale where clinicians want a vasoconstrictor-containing mepivacaine product but do not want to use an epinephrine-based formulation.

What manufacturing and IP barriers affect commercial entry?

The active ingredients are not the main barrier. Manufacturing execution is more important.

Critical manufacturing controls

• Accurate levonordefrin assay at low concentration
• Uniform mixing and content homogeneity
• Oxygen control during compounding and filling
• Sulfite concentration control
• Sterile filtration or validated aseptic processing
• Cartridge filling accuracy
• Container-closure integrity
• Particulate control
• Light protection
• Stability-indicating analytical methods
• Control of degradation products

Levonordefrin is present at a much lower concentration than mepivacaine. That creates a narrow analytical and manufacturing challenge: the product must deliver consistent vasoconstrictor content without compromising the dominant anesthetic component.

Trade-secret value

A manufacturer may protect the following through trade secrets rather than patents:

• Deoxygenation and nitrogen-overlay conditions
• Order of excipient addition
• Mixing time and shear conditions
• Cartridge filling parameters
• Elastomer selection
• Sterilization or aseptic-processing controls
• Stability-indicating methods
• Supplier qualification and raw-material specifications

These controls can create practical entry barriers even where patent protection is limited.

What licensing deals and commercial partnerships are relevant?

The most attractive partnership structures are likely to involve:

• Dental cartridge manufacturing
• Contract aseptic filling
• Private-label distribution
• Dental-service organization supply agreements
• Hospital and clinic group purchasing
• Regional distributor arrangements
• Device and cartridge technology licensing
• Dual sourcing for supply continuity

A follow-on sponsor could license a cartridge platform or sterile-fill capability rather than license the legacy drug formulation. The commercial value would come from reliable supply, lower breakage, better packaging, and competitive acquisition cost.

No material current licensing transaction or settlement agreement is established in the cited FDA sources.

What revenue exposure and launch scenarios exist?

Carbocaine with Neo-Cobefrin is a niche dental injectable rather than a high-revenue systemic medicine. Revenue exposure is tied to procedure volume, cartridge utilization, distributor coverage, and product availability.

Generic launch scenarios

Scenario	Commercial effect
Single generic entrant	Moderate price pressure and potential supply advantage
Multiple generic entrants	Rapid erosion and distributor-driven price competition
Branded supply disruption	Opportunity for rapid private-label substitution
Sulfite-free differentiated entrant	Premium pricing if clinically accepted
Cartridge-performance entrant	Share capture through clinician convenience
Hospital-only launch	Limited volume but potentially stable contracts
Dental-service organization contract	Larger volume with lower margins

A standard generic would compete primarily on price and continuity of supply. A differentiated product would need evidence that its excipient or cartridge design solves a real clinical or operational problem.

What generic entry risks exist?

Generic entry risks include:

1. Difficulty identifying an eligible reference product.
2. Inconsistent availability of levonordefrin active pharmaceutical ingredient.
3. Low-dose assay variability.
4. Sulfite-related labeling and safety requirements.
5. Cartridge breakage and elastomer compatibility issues.
6. FDA scrutiny of sterile manufacturing.
7. Limited market size relative to development and validation cost.
8. Dentist resistance to switching established anesthetic products.
9. Distributor preference for broad dental portfolios.
10. Price compression after multiple entrants.

The most credible entry strategy is a cost-efficient, supply-reliable product with equivalent clinical positioning and improved cartridge performance.

Key Takeaways

• Carbocaine with Neo-Cobefrin combines 2% mepivacaine hydrochloride with levonordefrin, typically at 1:20,000.
• The formulation relies on conventional injectable excipients, including sodium chloride, water for injection, pH adjusters, and an antioxidant system for the vasoconstrictor.
• Basic active-ingredient and formulation patent protection is expected to be weak or expired.
• The strongest follow-on opportunities involve sulfite reduction, oxygen control, cartridge engineering, stability, and supply reliability.
• Biosimilar risk is not relevant because this is a small-molecule injectable, not a biologic.
• Regulatory strategy may involve an ANDA or 505(b)(2) application, depending on the reference product and formulation differences.
• Commercial success depends more on dental distribution, cartridge quality, and dependable supply than on broad patent exclusivity.
• Paragraph IV litigation and settlement activity are not established in the cited FDA materials.
• A sulfite-free or lower-sulfite product could command differentiation, but it would require substantial stability and safety development.
• Generic entry is technically feasible but economically constrained by the limited dental market and sterile-cartridge manufacturing requirements.

FAQs

Is Neo-Cobefrin the same as epinephrine?

No. Neo-Cobefrin is associated with levonordefrin, a sympathomimetic vasoconstrictor. It is not epinephrine.

Does Carbocaine with Neo-Cobefrin contain a preservative?

The product is a sterile dental injectable and may contain sodium metabisulfite as an antioxidant for levonordefrin. The exact inactive-ingredient statement depends on the approved product presentation.

Can a manufacturer market plain mepivacaine as a substitute?

Plain mepivacaine may be clinically substitutable in some procedures, but it is not the same formulation. It lacks levonordefrin and may provide different duration and hemostatic performance.

Is a sulfite-free version automatically therapeutically equivalent?

No. Removing or replacing sulfite changes the formulation. The sponsor would need to demonstrate stability, sterility, safety, and regulatory equivalence or obtain approval through an appropriate pathway.

Are biosimilars relevant to Carbocaine with Neo-Cobefrin?

No. Mepivacaine and levonordefrin are small-molecule active ingredients. Competition would generally occur through generic or follow-on drug pathways rather than biosimilar approval.

References

1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (n.d.). Carbocaine with Neo-Cobefrin: Prescribing information and labeling. DailyMed.
2. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (n.d.). Approved drug products with therapeutic equivalence evaluations. FDA Orange Book.
3. U.S. Pharmacopeial Convention. (2024). United States Pharmacopeia and National Formulary. U.S. Pharmacopeial Convention.
4. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2024). Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21, parts 210, 211, and 314. Government Publishing Office.