List of Excipients in Branded Drug NEO-POLY-BAC

« Back to Dashboard

Generic Drugs Containing NEO-POLY-BAC

Company	Ingredient	NDC	Excipient
Butler Animal Health Supply	neomycin sulfate, polymyxin b sulfate and bacitracin zinc	11695-1405	MINERAL OIL
Butler Animal Health Supply	neomycin sulfate, polymyxin b sulfate and bacitracin zinc	11695-1405	PETROLATUM
Butler Animal Health Supply	neomycin sulfate and polymyxin b sulfate, bacitracin zinc and hydrocortisone	11695-1406	MINERAL OIL
Butler Animal Health Supply	neomycin sulfate and polymyxin b sulfate, bacitracin zinc and hydrocortisone	11695-1406	PETROLATUM

What are the Most Frequently-Used Excipients in NEO-POLY-BAC?

# Of NDCs	Excipient
1	MINERAL OIL
1	PETROLATUM

Last updated: September 27, 2026

The commercial opportunity for NEO-POLY-BAC is primarily formulation-led rather than patent-led. The product combines bacitracin zinc, neomycin sulfate, and polymyxin B sulfate in a sterile ophthalmic ointment using mineral oil and white petrolatum. Its active-ingredient and conventional-base technology is mature, leaving limited composition-of-matter protection but several opportunities in preservative-free packaging, viscosity control, unit-dose delivery, hospital supply, and authorized-generic competition.

NEO-POLY-BAC Excipient Strategy and Commercial Opportunities

What is NEO-POLY-BAC and how is it formulated?

NEO-POLY-BAC is a prescription ophthalmic ointment containing three topical antibiotics:

Component	Labeled strength per gram	Function
Bacitracin zinc	400 units	Gram-positive antibacterial coverage
Neomycin sulfate	Equivalent to 3.5 mg neomycin base	Aminoglycoside antibacterial
Polymyxin B sulfate	10,000 units	Primarily gram-negative antibacterial
Mineral oil	Inactive ingredient	Ointment vehicle and emollient
White petrolatum	Inactive ingredient	Ophthalmic base, occlusion, viscosity control

The product is indicated for superficial bacterial infections of the eye and surrounding structures. The formulation is anhydrous, semisolid, sterile, and designed for topical ocular application rather than systemic absorption [1].

The base is commercially important because it controls drug dispersion, extrusion from the tube, ocular residence time, patient comfort, and sterility performance. In a product with old active ingredients and limited current patent differentiation, these attributes determine most of the practical competitive value.

What excipient strategy is used in NEO-POLY-BAC?

The current excipient strategy is deliberately narrow. Mineral oil and white petrolatum provide a hydrophobic, water-free base that supports chemical stability and avoids the need for an aqueous preservative system.

White petrolatum

White petrolatum provides the continuous ointment phase. Its advantages include:

• Established ophthalmic use
• Low water activity
• Compatibility with aluminum and ophthalmic polymer tubes
• Long residence time on the ocular surface
• Low formulation complexity
• Broad supplier availability

Its disadvantages are temporary blurred vision, greasy texture, variable spreadability, and potential patient resistance to frequent use.

Mineral oil

Mineral oil adjusts consistency, lubricity, and extrusion behavior. The ratio between mineral oil and petrolatum affects:

• Ointment yield stress
• Tube dispensing force
• Ocular spreading
• Residence time
• Perceived greasiness
• Dose uniformity during filling

The formulation must maintain a stable suspension or dispersion of antibiotic powders throughout manufacturing and shelf life. Settling, aggregation, or nonuniformity can create content-uniformity risk even in a simple anhydrous system.

Absence of an aqueous preservative system

The conventional product does not depend on benzalkonium chloride, chlorobutanol, or another aqueous preservative. That is strategically useful because preservative exposure can contribute to ocular surface irritation, particularly in patients using multiple ophthalmic medicines.

The primary microbiological control mechanism is sterile manufacturing and sterile packaging. A preservative-free ointment is not automatically easier to manufacture. It requires validated sterilization or aseptic processing, controlled raw materials, container-closure integrity, and demonstrated sterility through the product lifecycle.

What formulation improvements could create commercial differentiation?

The strongest opportunities are incremental improvements that preserve the antibiotic combination and simplify regulatory positioning.

Lower-occlusion ointment

A lower-viscosity petrolatum-mineral-oil system could reduce blurred vision and improve patient acceptance. The tradeoff is shorter ocular residence time and potentially greater dosing frequency.

A successful product would need comparative evidence for:

• Extrusion force
• Spreadability
• In vitro release
• Ocular residence
• Particle dispersion
• Stability
• Patient acceptability

The formulation cannot be optimized solely for a softer texture. A reduction in viscosity may cause phase separation, leakage, sedimentation, or inconsistent dose delivery.

Unit-dose preservative-free packaging

Unit-dose tubes or single-use ophthalmic devices could target:

• Postoperative ophthalmic care
• Hospital formularies
• Patients with preservative sensitivity
• Long-term users with ocular surface disease
• Institutional settings seeking reduced cross-contamination risk

Unit-dose packaging increases material and filling costs. It also creates a higher packaging-to-drug ratio and may reduce manufacturing throughput. The commercial case depends on hospital purchasing, premium reimbursement, or a clinically meaningful reduction in contamination risk.

Improved tube and nozzle design

Packaging is a practical differentiation route. Potential improvements include:

• Low-dead-volume tubes
• Tamper-evident closures
• Controlled-dose nozzles
• Narrower dispensing apertures
• Multilayer polymer tubes
• Aluminum tubes with internal coatings
• Unit-dose blow-fill-seal systems

The package must prevent microbial ingress without requiring contact between the nozzle and the eye or eyelid. Container-closure integrity and extractables and leachables are central regulatory considerations [2].

Reduced particle size and improved dispersion

Bacitracin zinc, neomycin sulfate, and polymyxin B sulfate have different physical and chemical properties. Particle-size reduction and controlled powder processing could improve:

• Dose uniformity
• Smoothness
• Ocular comfort
• Suspension stability
• Release consistency

Any particle-engineering strategy must avoid changing the drug substance’s solid-state characteristics in a way that affects potency, degradation, or regulatory comparability.

Combination with an anti-inflammatory

NEO-POLY-BAC should be distinguished from antibiotic-corticosteroid products such as NEO-POLY-BAC HC. Adding hydrocortisone can expand treatment positioning but introduces a different benefit-risk profile, including steroid-related intraocular pressure elevation, delayed healing, and infection-masking concerns. It also creates a more complex clinical and regulatory strategy.

What patents protect NEO-POLY-BAC?

NEO-POLY-BAC has a weak patent profile relative to newer ophthalmic delivery products. Bacitracin, neomycin, and polymyxin B are longstanding antibiotic substances. Their original composition-of-matter protection expired decades ago.

The conventional mineral oil and white petrolatum base is also mature technology. A generic sponsor would not normally face a meaningful composition-of-matter barrier from those excipients.

Protection category	Commercial assessment
Active-ingredient patents	Original protection expired
Conventional petrolatum-mineral-oil base	Mature, generally nonexclusive technology
Method-of-use patents	Limited value for established topical antibiotic indications
Formulation patents	Possible only for specific ratios, particle properties, packaging, or release performance
Manufacturing patents	Potentially relevant if a process materially improves sterility, uniformity, or filling
Biosimilar exclusivity	Not applicable
Regulatory exclusivity	No biologic exclusivity framework applies

A current Orange Book review should focus on the specific NDA record and any listed patents for the marketed product. Patent absence or expiration does not eliminate regulatory barriers. A competing product still must establish pharmaceutical quality, sterility, stability, active-ingredient identity, potency, and bioequivalence or other applicable approval requirements under the FDA pathway [3].

When does NEO-POLY-BAC lose exclusivity?

The product's principal commercial exclusivity has already shifted from patent protection to regulatory approval, manufacturing capability, customer relationships, and supply reliability.

Because the active ingredients are old antibiotics, the key question is not when a basic patent expires. It is whether a competitor can obtain approval and consistently manufacture a sterile ophthalmic ointment that meets specifications.

Potential entry routes include:

1. An ANDA for a pharmaceutically equivalent ophthalmic ointment.
2. An NDA for a clinically or technically differentiated formulation.
3. An authorized generic or licensed supply arrangement.
4. A hospital-focused unit-dose product.
5. A private-label product manufactured by an approved ophthalmic contractor.

Paragraph IV litigation is relevant only if the reference product has unexpired, listed patents in the Orange Book. For a mature triple-antibiotic ointment, the more probable barrier is product development and sterile manufacturing rather than a live patent dispute.

What is the Orange Book status of NEO-POLY-BAC?

The Orange Book is the controlling FDA source for listed patents, therapeutic-equivalence evaluations, and reference-product information. NEO-POLY-BAC should be evaluated by its exact NDA, dosage form, strength, and current marketing status rather than by the brand name alone [3].

For a competitor, the Orange Book diligence sequence is:

• Confirm the reference-listed drug.
• Identify the active NDA and dosage form.
• Review listed patents and exclusivity codes.
• Determine whether the product is eligible for ANDA referencing.
• Check therapeutic-equivalence codes for competing products.
• Review FDA approval letters and labeling history.
• Compare formulation and container-closure requirements.

A patent challenge would likely be commercially unattractive if no unexpired listed patents remain. In that situation, a Paragraph III certification or standard ANDA pathway would usually present less litigation exposure than a Paragraph IV strategy.

Which companies are challenging or competing with NEO-POLY-BAC?

The competitive set includes branded products, generic ophthalmic ointments, combination antibiotic products, and alternative dosage forms.

Direct competitors

Direct competitors may include generic versions of triple-antibiotic ophthalmic ointment and other products containing the same three antibiotics. Competition is based on:

• Wholesale acquisition cost
• Contract reliability
• Backorder history
• Sterility performance
• Formulary status
• Tube size
• Unit-dose availability
• Reimbursement and substitution status

Adjacent competitors

Adjacent products include:

• Bacitracin ophthalmic ointment
• Neomycin-polymyxin B ophthalmic products
• Erythromycin ophthalmic ointment
• Antibiotic-corticosteroid combinations
• Fluoroquinolone ophthalmic solutions
• Aminoglycoside or polymyxin ophthalmic drops

Ointments have longer ocular residence than solutions but can produce more visual blurring. Drops can be easier to administer during the day but may require more frequent dosing.

How strong is the patent estate for NEO-POLY-BAC?

The patent estate is weak for the base product and potentially moderate for a genuinely differentiated delivery platform.

Asset type	Patent strength	Commercial value
Triple-antibiotic combination alone	Low	Limited blocking power
Petrolatum-mineral-oil vehicle	Low	Broad prior-art exposure
Narrow excipient ratio	Low to moderate	Vulnerable to design-around
Unit-dose sterile package	Moderate	Useful if tied to measurable performance
Controlled-release ocular ointment	Moderate to strong	Higher development burden
Novel particle engineering	Moderate	Requires robust technical data
Manufacturing process	Moderate	Valuable if difficult to replicate
Combination with steroid	Product-specific	Clinical and safety complexity

A defensible patent position would require more than claiming the presence of familiar excipients. Stronger claims could cover a defined composition range linked to viscosity, drug release, particle-size distribution, stability, or dose uniformity. Packaging claims are more valuable when they solve a demonstrated contamination, dosing, or usability problem.

What manufacturing and intellectual-property barriers exist?

The principal manufacturing barrier is sterile ophthalmic production. Requirements include:

• Qualified antibiotic raw materials
• Validated sterilization or aseptic processing
• Controlled powder dispersion
• Homogeneous filling
• Tube-closure integrity
• Particulate control
• Stability under labeled storage conditions
• Microbiological quality testing
• Reliable supply of pharmaceutical-grade petrolatum and mineral oil

A sponsor may need dedicated equipment because ointment manufacture is difficult to clean, heat, and transfer without altering viscosity or creating residues. Antibiotic powders can also complicate containment and occupational controls.

Potential manufacturing IP opportunities include:

• Low-shear dispersion methods
• Sterile powder incorporation
• Improved homogenization
• Reduced-temperature processing
• Continuous ointment filling
• Low-loss tube filling
• In-line weight and content controls

These patents would have value only if the process reduces cost, improves quality, or creates a measurable product attribute that competitors cannot easily reproduce.

What regulatory status and FDA pathway apply?

NEO-POLY-BAC is a prescription ophthalmic drug, not a biologic. Biosimilar competition does not apply. The likely competitive pathway is an ANDA if the proposed product can demonstrate pharmaceutical equivalence and satisfy FDA requirements for the reference product.

Key regulatory considerations include:

• Same active ingredients
• Same dosage form
• Comparable strength
• Sterile ophthalmic quality
• Appropriate inactive ingredients
• Stability and shelf life
• Container-closure suitability
• Product quality and manufacturing controls
• Labeling consistent with the reference product

A materially different excipient system, delivery device, release profile, or clinical claim may require a more extensive NDA strategy. A formulation that changes ocular residence or local exposure could also trigger additional comparative performance requirements.

What licensing deals could support a NEO-POLY-BAC opportunity?

The most realistic licensing structures are supply and commercialization agreements rather than patent licenses.

Potential structures include:

• Contract manufacturing and supply agreement
• Authorized-generic agreement
• Regional commercialization license
• Hospital or institutional private-label arrangement
• Unit-dose packaging license
• Sterile ophthalmic technology license
• Co-development agreement for a lower-blur or preservative-free product

Deal economics would depend on manufacturing capacity, regulatory ownership, territory, minimum purchase commitments, quality responsibilities, and backorder protection. A patent-only license would have limited value unless tied to a differentiated formulation or packaging platform.

What revenue exposure and generic launch scenarios exist?

Revenue exposure depends on the reference product's current market share, reimbursement, and availability of substitutes. The mature product category is more likely to experience price erosion than rapid volume displacement.

Generic launch scenarios

Scenario	Likely market effect
One approved generic	Moderate price pressure; brand may retain institutional accounts
Several approved generics	Significant price erosion and pharmacy substitution
Authorized generic launch	Faster share capture with lower litigation risk
Unit-dose differentiated entrant	Premium niche rather than broad substitution
Supply disruption	Temporary price and share gains for reliable suppliers
Reformulated low-blur product	Potential branded or NDA-based premium

The strongest commercial opportunity is likely to come from dependable supply and differentiated packaging rather than premium pricing for the same conventional ointment.

How does NEO-POLY-BAC compare with competing ophthalmic antibiotics?

Attribute	NEO-POLY-BAC ointment	Fluoroquinolone drops	Erythromycin ointment
Dosage form	Ointment	Solution or suspension	Ointment
Ocular residence	Relatively long	Shorter	Relatively long
Visual blurring	More likely	Less likely	More likely
Spectrum	Mixed gram-positive and gram-negative coverage	Broad, product-specific	Primarily gram-positive
Preservative strategy	Often anhydrous	Frequently aqueous and preserved	Usually anhydrous
Generic competition	Mature	Mature but product-specific	Mature
Biosimilar risk	None	None	None
Differentiation opportunity	Packaging, viscosity, sterility, dose delivery	Device and dosing convenience	Tolerability and formulation

Key Takeaways

• NEO-POLY-BAC is a mature triple-antibiotic ophthalmic ointment based on bacitracin zinc, neomycin sulfate, polymyxin B sulfate, mineral oil, and white petrolatum.
• Its commercial position is not driven by meaningful new-molecule patent protection.
• The strongest formulation opportunities are lower-blur ointments, unit-dose preservative-free packaging, improved dispensing systems, and better particle dispersion.
• Sterile manufacturing, content uniformity, container-closure integrity, and supply reliability are more important barriers than basic formulation patents.
• Paragraph IV risk is likely limited unless the specific reference product has unexpired Orange Book-listed patents.
• Biosimilar competition does not apply because NEO-POLY-BAC is a conventional drug, not a biologic.
• Licensing opportunities are more likely to involve manufacturing, authorized generics, packaging, or regional commercialization than a standalone patent license.
• A conventional generic would face price erosion. A differentiated product could preserve value through hospital supply, unit-dose packaging, improved tolerability, or lower visual blurring.

FAQs

Can NEO-POLY-BAC be reformulated without changing its active ingredients?

Yes. A sponsor can evaluate alternative excipient ratios, particle processing, tube systems, or unit-dose packaging. The regulatory pathway depends on whether the changes preserve equivalence or materially alter product performance.

Is benzalkonium chloride needed in NEO-POLY-BAC ointment?

No. An anhydrous petrolatum-mineral-oil ointment does not require the same aqueous preservative strategy used by many multidose ophthalmic solutions. Sterile processing and container-closure control remain necessary.

Does NEO-POLY-BAC have biosimilar competition?

No. Biosimilar regulation applies to biologic products. NEO-POLY-BAC is a conventional antibiotic drug and would face generic or follow-on ophthalmic competition instead.

What is the most defensible patent angle for a new NEO-POLY-BAC product?

The strongest potential claims would link a defined formulation or package to measurable performance, such as improved dose uniformity, controlled release, lower dispensing force, reduced ocular blurring, or enhanced microbial protection.

Is a unit-dose NEO-POLY-BAC product commercially viable?

It can be viable in hospitals, surgery centers, and preservative-sensitive patient segments if the product demonstrates supply, contamination-control, and usability advantages that justify higher packaging and manufacturing costs.

References

1. DailyMed. (n.d.). NEO-POLY-BAC: Bacitracin zinc, neomycin sulfate, and polymyxin B sulfate ophthalmic ointment labeling. U.S. National Library of Medicine.

2. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2023). Sterile drug products produced by aseptic processing: Current good manufacturing practice guidance for industry. FDA.

3. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2024). Approved drug products with therapeutic equivalence evaluations, 44th edition. FDA.