List of Excipients in Branded Drug PICATO

« Back to Dashboard

Company	Tradename	Ingredient	NDC	Excipient	Potential Generic Entry
LEO Pharma Inc	PICATO	ingenol mebutate	50222-502	BENZYL ALCOHOL	2027-07-06
LEO Pharma Inc	PICATO	ingenol mebutate	50222-502	CITRIC ACID MONOHYDRATE	2027-07-06
LEO Pharma Inc	PICATO	ingenol mebutate	50222-502	HYDROXYETHYL CELLULOSE	2027-07-06
LEO Pharma Inc	PICATO	ingenol mebutate	50222-502	ISOPROPYL ALCOHOL	2027-07-06

Picato Excipient Strategy and Commercial Opportunities After Withdrawal

Last updated: September 29, 2026

Picato, the ingenol mebutate topical gel marketed by LEO Pharma for actinic keratosis, has no viable near-term commercial opportunity as an approved product in the United States or European Union. Its formulation is technically simple: a low-viscosity hydroalcoholic gel using isopropyl alcohol, hydroxyethyl cellulose, benzyl alcohol, citrate components and purified water. The central commercial issue is not excipient cost or manufacturing complexity. It is the drug’s unfavorable benefit-risk profile and withdrawal from major markets after a skin-cancer signal.

A Picato-like formulation platform could still have value for a different active ingredient, provided the sponsor establishes a new safety profile and regulatory pathway. Recreating Picato with the same active ingredient would face substantial approval, clinical, pharmacovigilance and market-acceptance barriers.

What was Picato and how was it formulated?

Picato was a prescription topical gel containing ingenol mebutate. It was approved in two strengths:

Product	Ingenol mebutate concentration	Historical use	Historical treatment schedule
Picato 0.015%	0.15 mg/g	Actinic keratosis on the face and scalp	Once daily for 3 consecutive days
Picato 0.05%	0.5 mg/g	Actinic keratosis on the trunk and extremities	Once daily for 2 consecutive days

The formulation used a hydroalcoholic vehicle. Listed inactive ingredients included isopropyl alcohol, benzyl alcohol, hydroxyethyl cellulose, citric acid or citrate buffer components, and purified water, depending on the jurisdictional product information and presentation.[1]

The formulation strategy had four functional objectives:

1. Dissolve and distribute a highly potent, low-dose active ingredient.
2. Produce a gel that could be spread over a defined field of actinic keratosis.
3. Promote rapid topical delivery and local exposure.
4. Dry relatively quickly after application without requiring an occlusive dressing.

The vehicle was commercially important because Picato was designed as a short-course field treatment rather than a conventional cream used for several weeks.

What did each Picato excipient do?

Isopropyl alcohol

Isopropyl alcohol was the principal volatile solvent and vehicle component. Its likely formulation functions were to support ingenol mebutate solubilization, reduce viscosity after application, accelerate drying and improve spreading over the treatment field.

The commercial tradeoff was tolerability. High-alcohol topical vehicles can produce stinging, burning, erythema and barrier disruption, particularly on inflamed or sun-damaged skin. Those effects were relevant in Picato because local skin reactions were common and sometimes intense.

For a successor product, the alcohol system would be the first component to reassess. A lower-alcohol vehicle, a mixed solvent system or a nonalcoholic emulsion could improve tolerability, but each alternative would require new work on solubility, delivery, drying time, preservative control and dose uniformity.

Hydroxyethyl cellulose

Hydroxyethyl cellulose was the gel-forming polymer. It provides viscosity, stabilizes the formulation and improves retention on the skin during application.

Its advantages include broad pharmaceutical use, relatively simple processing and compatibility with aqueous systems. Its limitations include possible viscosity changes across pH and temperature ranges, batch-to-batch variability in hydration and potential effects on active release.

A generic or follow-on manufacturer would need to control:

• Polymer grade and substitution level
• Hydration time and mixing order
• Final viscosity
• Active-content uniformity
• Spreadability
• In-use stability
• Release of ingenol mebutate from the gel matrix

Because Picato was administered in small quantities, assay uniformity and fill accuracy could be more important than bulk rheology.

Benzyl alcohol

Benzyl alcohol can function as a preservative, solvent and co-solvent. In a low-water hydroalcoholic gel, it may support microbial control and active solubilization.

Its use creates several development considerations. Benzyl alcohol can contribute to irritation and sensitization, and regulators expect appropriate justification for its concentration and exposure. A replacement preservative would need to maintain antimicrobial protection without materially changing the active’s solubility or skin delivery.

Citric acid and citrate components

The citrate system provides pH control. pH can affect active stability, preservative performance, skin tolerability and the chemical environment at the application site.

A reformulator should establish a narrow pH specification based on forced-degradation data rather than relying on the historical product range. Changes in pH can alter the apparent solubility of the active and may change the release profile from the gel.

Purified water

Water completes the vehicle and supports polymer hydration. Its level affects viscosity, solvent strength, drying behavior and microbial risk. Small changes in water content can alter product performance in a formulation containing substantial volatile solvent.

What is the FDA and European regulatory status of Picato?

Picato is no longer a commercially active product in the major Western markets.

Jurisdiction	Regulatory development	Commercial effect
United States	FDA identified an increased risk of skin cancer and announced that LEO Pharma requested withdrawal of Picato from the U.S. market in 2020	U.S. commercial distribution ended
European Union	EMA concluded that the benefits no longer outweighed the risks and recommended revocation of the marketing authorization in 2020	EU authorization was withdrawn
Other markets	LEO Pharma announced global discontinuation or withdrawal activity	Market access was materially reduced worldwide

The FDA reported that patients treated with ingenol mebutate had a higher incidence of certain skin tumors than patients receiving imiquimod in a clinical study, prompting the agency to recommend that patients stop using Picato.[2] EMA’s review reached the same commercial conclusion from a benefit-risk perspective.[3]

The FDA’s action is the key barrier to any U.S. generic strategy. A manufacturer cannot treat Picato as an ordinary discontinued topical drug where a simple abbreviated application may create a realistic launch path. The safety signal affects the reference product, the labeling, the proposed indication and the need for new clinical evidence.

What is the Orange Book status of Picato?

Picato was approved under NDA 22483. Historical Orange Book and product information should be distinguished from current commercial availability. The product’s withdrawal means that any remaining patent or exclusivity rights do not restore a viable marketed product.

The primary legal questions for a would-be entrant would include:

• Whether the NDA remains listed as withdrawn for safety or for commercial reasons.
• Whether an ANDA pathway remains available for the proposed formulation.
• Whether FDA would require a new drug application rather than an abbreviated application.
• Whether historical patents remain enforceable.
• Whether any formulation or method-of-use claims cover the proposed product.
• Whether the proposed labeling could omit the safety concerns associated with ingenol mebutate.

Because Picato was withdrawn after a safety finding, the regulatory classification of the withdrawal matters more than patent expiry. A Paragraph IV challenge would have limited commercial value if FDA will not approve the proposed product for the historical indication without new evidence.

What patents protected Picato and its formulation?

Picato’s historic protection likely included a combination of active-ingredient, pharmaceutical-composition and therapeutic-use rights held or licensed by LEO Pharma and related entities. The commercial patent estate would have been directed at:

• Ingenol mebutate as an active compound
• Topical compositions containing ingenol mebutate
• Concentration ranges
• Treatment of actinic keratosis
• Dosing schedules for different body regions
• Manufacturing or purification of the active ingredient

The excipient list alone does not establish freedom to operate. A formulation using isopropyl alcohol, hydroxyethyl cellulose, benzyl alcohol, citrate and water could still fall within composition claims if the claims cover the active and concentration range broadly.

For a new developer, the practical patent strategy would be different from a standard generic strategy. The focus would be on designing around any surviving formulation claims, filing new composition claims for a different active or delivery system and avoiding reliance on Picato-specific treatment claims.

The withdrawal also reduces the value of Picato patent enforcement. A patent holder may retain legal rights, but the addressable market has been reduced by regulatory and clinical concerns.

How strong is the Picato formulation patent estate?

The formulation estate is commercially weaker than it would have been before the 2020 safety actions. Its technical subject matter is relatively conventional:

• A volatile alcohol vehicle
• A cellulose-based gel former
• A preservative or co-solvent
• A citrate pH system
• A low-dose topical active

These components can support patentable combinations when tied to a specific active, concentration, stability profile or therapeutic result. They are less likely to provide broad exclusion against all topical gels.

The strongest historical claims would likely have been those linking ingenol mebutate to a defined concentration and treatment regimen. Broad claims covering generic hydroalcoholic gels would face greater validity and design-around pressure because the individual excipients have extensive prior use in topical pharmaceutical products.

For licensing or acquisition purposes, the formulation patent estate should be valued below the clinical and regulatory risk of ingenol mebutate. The formulation itself does not solve the product’s safety problem.

What commercial opportunities remain for Picato excipients?

The excipients have value as commodity and specialty pharmaceutical ingredients, but that value is independent of Picato.

Reformulation of topical dermatology products

The most credible opportunity is to adapt the hydroalcoholic gel architecture for another active ingredient. Potential development targets could include:

• Topical anti-inflammatory agents
• Keratolytic compounds
• Antiviral agents
• Dermatologic oncology drugs
• Local anesthetics
• Agents requiring rapid field application

The platform is most suitable where rapid spreading, short residence time and efficient delivery are desired.

Low-cost generic excipient supply

Isopropyl alcohol, hydroxyethyl cellulose, benzyl alcohol, citrate salts and purified water are widely available. They do not create a meaningful single-source supply opportunity unless the developer owns a differentiated grade, validated manufacturing process or proprietary packaging system.

The main supply-chain requirements are:

• Pharmaceutical-grade solvent qualification
• Control of residual impurities
• Consistent polymer viscosity
• Microbial limits
• Container-closure compatibility
• Stability under temperature excursions
• Control of solvent loss during storage

Packaging and dose-control systems

A Picato-like product requires accurate delivery of a small amount of gel over a defined skin area. Commercial opportunity may exist in unit-dose sachets, metered pumps or airless packaging. Packaging can reduce solvent evaporation, improve dose consistency and limit contamination.

A packaging-based lifecycle strategy would be more defensible for a new active than for Picato itself because the historical product’s treatment schedule does not overcome its safety limitations.

Are there generic-entry opportunities for Picato?

A conventional generic launch is commercially unattractive.

Regulatory barriers

The key obstacle is the safety signal associated with ingenol mebutate. FDA approval of a new generic would likely require the agency to accept the same risk-benefit profile as the withdrawn reference product. If the historical indication is no longer acceptable, an abbreviated application would not provide a practical route to market.

Clinical barriers

A sponsor seeking to revive ingenol mebutate would need to address tumor risk through additional clinical and epidemiologic evidence, revised patient selection, surveillance or a different indication. Those requirements could approach the cost and duration of a new drug development program.

Market barriers

Actinic keratosis already has established alternatives, including cryotherapy, photodynamic therapy, topical 5-fluorouracil, imiquimod, tirbanibulin and diclofenac-based products. A revived ingenol mebutate product would need a clear advantage in efficacy, treatment duration, tolerability or cost.

Litigation barriers

Patent litigation would be secondary to FDA review. A Paragraph IV certification could challenge any remaining listed patent, but a favorable court decision would not resolve the product’s safety and approval issues.

How does Picato compare with competing actinic keratosis treatments?

Product or treatment	Active or modality	Typical commercial position	Picato comparison
Picato	Ingenol mebutate gel	Withdrawn	Short treatment course but unacceptable safety profile
Efudix or generic 5-fluorouracil	5-fluorouracil	Established field therapy	Longer treatment, broad generic availability
Aldara or generic imiquimod	Imiquimod	Established immune-modulating therapy	More prolonged regimen, stronger current market position
Klisyri	Tirbanibulin	Short-course topical therapy	Competes on treatment duration without the Picato safety history
Solaraze	Diclofenac gel	Longer-course treatment	Lower-intensity treatment with different efficacy and tolerability profile
Photodynamic therapy	Light-activated treatment	Office-based field therapy	Higher provider involvement, no ingenol mebutate exposure
Cryotherapy	Physical lesion destruction	Standard lesion-directed treatment	Does not treat the full field as a topical product does

What is the revenue exposure from Picato withdrawal?

Current direct revenue exposure is limited because Picato is no longer marketed in the United States or European Union. The withdrawal removed product sales, promotional spending and commercial value tied to the ingenol mebutate franchise.

Potential residual value may remain in:

• Historical royalties
• Patent enforcement
• Product-liability reserves
• Regulatory records
• Manufacturing know-how
• Excipients and packaging technology
• Formulation platforms applicable to other dermatology products

The excipients themselves are unlikely to support material Picato-specific licensing revenue. Their value is mainly as inputs into broader topical formulation portfolios.

Key Takeaways

• Picato used a simple hydroalcoholic gel based on isopropyl alcohol, hydroxyethyl cellulose, benzyl alcohol, citrate components and purified water.
• The excipient system was designed for rapid spreading, drying and topical delivery over actinic keratosis fields.
• Picato was withdrawn after regulators identified an increased skin-cancer risk associated with ingenol mebutate.
• A conventional generic or Paragraph IV strategy has limited commercial value because regulatory risk exceeds ordinary patent risk.
• The excipients are commercially useful as a platform for other topical drugs, but Picato-specific licensing value is low.
• A new developer should pursue a different active ingredient, new safety data and differentiated packaging or delivery claims rather than recreate Picato.

FAQs About Picato Excipients and Commercial Opportunities

Can Picato’s excipient system be used in a new topical drug?

Yes. The hydroalcoholic gel architecture can be adapted to other actives, but the new product would require independent formulation, stability, safety, delivery and regulatory studies.

Is hydroxyethyl cellulose a proprietary Picato excipient?

No. Hydroxyethyl cellulose is a widely used pharmaceutical gel-forming polymer. Its commercial value comes from grade consistency and formulation performance, not Picato exclusivity.

Can a company relaunch ingenol mebutate with different excipients?

A different excipient system would not remove the active ingredient’s safety concern. A relaunch would require a regulatory strategy addressing the observed skin-cancer risk and could require substantial new clinical evidence.

Does Picato have biosimilar competition?

No. Picato is a small-molecule topical drug, not a biologic. The relevant competitors are generics, follow-on topical products and alternative actinic keratosis treatments.

Is Picato a viable target for formulation licensing?

Picato-specific licensing is weak as a commercial proposition. A license may have value only where it covers transferable manufacturing know-how, packaging technology or a broader topical delivery platform independent of ingenol mebutate.

References

1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2012). Picato (ingenol mebutate) gel prescribing information.
2. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2020). FDA advises patients with actinic keratosis to stop using Picato gel because of skin cancer risk.
3. European Medicines Agency. (2020). Picato: EMA recommends withdrawal of marketing authorisation.
4. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2020). FDA drug safety communication: Picato gel and increased risk of skin cancer.
5. European Medicines Agency. (2020). Picato: EPAR product information.